DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> PELICANPOST.BLOGSPOT.COM: June 2006

Friday, June 30, 2006

Oh, Bill Heller...! Did you get your thank you card from Osama-baby yet...?



Oh..., and when you have it in your hot little liberal-elite hand, how about publish it in The New York Times... on Page One... of Section A... above the fold. Don't treat it like a buried retraction.

It's in the "public interest," doncha' know...

(Hat tip to Gary Varvel for political 'toon.)

Hey... New York Times...! Why doncha' publish an expose-a about suicide terrorists you want our borders wide open for...


Betcha' don't want no on-the-road Congress-members' hearings 'bout terrorist wannabees who could be among th' umpty-millions you want to receive an en masse amnesty...!

(Hat tip to Bill Schorr for political 'toon.)

Now that The New York Times has blown their cover...


Hi, Secrets Tsar Bill Keller...! What are you wearing...? A fluffy pink taffeta tutu, perhaps...?

(Hat tip to John Darkow for political 'toon.)

Mark Levin is outraged... about the outrageous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan & the trashing of the Constitution, precedent & Geneva Conventions.

I found a lot of postings online yesterday about the collossal tripe that came out of five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan---in the form of a mixed-bag unconstitutional mangling of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers of the President. It was a blatant grab of power away from the Executive Branch and another treacherous step down the road of unconstitutionally basing decisions upon international law, unsupported opinion, and personal political ideology.

But Mark Levin's analysis, at levin.nationalreview, boils it down to the bottom line and tells it like it is. I appreciate that about Levin..., don't you? Guess that's why Sean Hannity calls him "The Great One." I concur with that opinion.

Some of it below, all at the above link.
__________
"The Outrage of Hamdan"

"Congress and the Court are systematically stripping the presidency of war-making powers. Congress demands that the president get court approval before intercepting enemy communications (we call that intelligence gathering) and the Court demands that the president get statutory support from Congress before he can use military tribunals to try terrorists.

And yet, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court have any explicit constitutional authority to make these decisions. Congress can cut-off funding for the war or any aspect of it, which it has not; and the judiciary's only role in these matters is to defer to the president, who has explicit and broad authority under the Constitution as the commander-in-chief.

Today, the Court has taken a giant new step in its usurpation of explicit presidential authority. The battle against terrorism is being fought as much in our courtrooms as on the field in Iraq and other places — where the likes of the ACLU and activist judges will set policy in contravention of the Constitution.

Congress and the courts are conferring rights and privileges on terrorists. They are conferring constitutonal protections on the enemy. They are granting the enemy jurisdiction in our civilian courts. They are extending the Geneva Conventions to an enemy that is specifically excluded from those protections.

I wrote an entire book on the subject of the Supreme Court, and how it's destroying America. And that's exactly what it's doing...

In the past, the Supreme Court refused to grant such access to our courts. And as I wrote at the time, this is a slippery slope. Having broken down the wall of restraint that had traditionally been recognized by the Court, there appears to be no limit anymore on the judiciary's role in second-guessing the commander-in-chief. And that's exactly what happened today.

The Supreme Court said today that in exercising his constitutional authority, the president had to comply with congressional statutory mandates. I don't believe the establishment of these tribunals violate any statute, but more to the point, since when does a statute trump the Constitution? Since never.

Let's look at the relevant Geneva Convention. First point - since when does a party that has NOT signed a treaty, and does not comply with a treaty, become a part of such a treaty? The Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war...(is) at Article 4...

Well, the activist Supreme Court majority in Hamdan decided to ignore this language. Instead, it looked to "Common Article 3," which has nothing to do with the current war. It requires, as an initial matter, that the conflict be not be of an international character. But the war on terrorism clearly is of an international character. Are the justices blind to the numerous known terrorist cells and conflicts throughout the world?

After rejecting the jurisdictional restriction of this article, the Court then went ahead and applied it to unlawful enemy combatants....

The author of this intellectually dishonest opinion is John Paul Stevens. Stevens did something very similar in the earlier Rasul case in which he played word games with "jurisdiction." In Rasul, the relevant statute provided that a writ of habeas corpus may be granted by a federal judge within their own jurisdiction, meaning within their judicial district.

Stevens twisted that language to mean that a federal judge's jurisdiction extends to any territory over which the U.S. exercises complete control, i.e., Guantanamo Bay — a military base located in a foreign country. In doing so, Stevens also reversed over 50-years of precedent...

In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Court held it that alien combatants did not have access to U.S. civilian courts.

Today the Supreme Court's majority trashed the Geneva Conventions, trashed Supreme Court precedent, and trashed the Constitution. But it did succeed in expanding its own authority and the ability of the enemy to conduct its war against us..."

Don Feder says The New York Times wants to keep Americans clueless about what's in the Senate's "open-borders immigration reform" bill monstrosity...

Folks, here is another *****Five Star, must read humor und witt column by Don Feder at frontpagemag, "New York Times' Open-Borders Hissy-Fit," in which he describes The New York Times' panic upon hearing the Republican Congress is going to take the "immigration reform" issue on the road this summer---to the American people. And explains The Times' hate-America liberal-elitist design for how America and Americans ought to be, how the liberal political elites should be in control, and their modus operandi for accomplishing their mission.

Could it be that The Times' angst over the Republican road show hearings is also due to the fact that the hearings will also provide a forum for discussion about The Times' traitorous act of publishing illegally-leaked, highest-level classified intelligence---thereby neutering a vital covert program to trace terrorist funding sources, conduits and players. An enormously reckless action that endangers national security and the lives of all Americans, especially our troops.

Here are some of the highlights. Or read it all at the above link.
__________
"These are heady days at The New York Times and Tokyo Rose Report... But there’s more to the Times’ efforts to subvert America then just tipping off Osama – much more.

Take its recent editorial (“The Immigration Road Show”) in which Traitors R Us threw a bizarre hissy fit over House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s decision to hold hearings on the Senate’s amnesty bill.

“This was supposed to be a time that the House and Senate got serious about immigration—by working out the differences between their drastically opposing bills and sending a solution to President Bush, who has made repairing the immigration system one of his cornerstone promises to Americans,” the Times intoned, in its typically restrained Jane-you-ignorant-slut voice...

Holding hearings means taking “the Senate bill on a perp walk through red states, relishing the catcalls denouncing it as ‘amnesty’ and using the hearings to milk whatever anti-immigrant sentiment they can drum up for the benefit of their candidates. Their motives could not be clearer,” the Times declaims.

And neither could the Times’ m.o. Its mantra is: Rubber-stamp the Senate bill now! Don’t ask questions. Don’t deliberate. And, for God’s sake, don’t look closely at this 640-page monstrosity... The New York Times will not abide any delay...

America’s newspaper of wretched would rather there was no loose talk about the illegal alien/crime connection – that 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegals, that 95% of murder warrants in the city are for undocumented workers, and that almost 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are drawn from the hard-working folks without “papers” who take jobs most Americans don’t want (like murder, rape and armed robbery).

The Times... wants the whole thing decided inside the Beltway – by the political elite, with the advice and consent of the media elite...

Do you ever wonder what sort of life forms write New York Times editorials...? Do they have pink taffeta tutus hanging in their closets and insist their friends call them Miss Mabel?

Question: What do you get when you cross Cindy Sheehan with John Murtha? Answer: A New York Times editorial writer.

What connects the Times disclosure of a sensitive intelligence operation (while Americans are dying in the war on terrorism) and its insistence on cramming an amnesty down our throats---is a blinding hatred for America.

The New York Times wants America to lose the war on terrorism. Immigration is the elite’s own weapon of mass destruction. Along with multiculturalism, bilingualism, hate-crimes legislation and quotas, they are using it to deconstruct America.

They dream of an America where the majority will feel no loyalty to the land, the flag or the heritage it represents, an America without a national language (where a fragmented population will babble at each other in a multitude of tongues), an America too divided to assert itself internationally, an America without borders, where a de facto merger of the United States and Mexico has been achieved, an America where government and multinational corporations will rule every aspect of our lives...

Imagine Middle America taking to the streets, carrying banners that read “Hey, hey, ho, ho – America’s borders have got to go!”, “Give us Another 60 Million Peons, or Give Us Death,” “It’s Not An Amnesty; It’s Just Rewarding Lawbreakers,” and “National Identity? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ National Identity!”

That will be just down the street from the Jews for Hamas, the Veterans for Fonda, the Sex-Abuse Survivors for Bill Clinton and the Baptists for Gay Marriage demonstrations..."

Thursday, June 29, 2006

The New York Times symbolizes a culture of treason...



According to Ann Coulter today on FNC's Neil Cavuto Show, this "culture of treason" occurred first in the Vietnam War. And, just like they sided with the Viet Kong postition in the Vietnam War, the Democrats are now, according to Coulter, "siding with the al Qaeda position"---as we fight al Qaeda-spawned or inspired terrorists.

The New York Times' treason---acting to unilaterally expose highest-classified national secrets that help the terrorists---has effectively fragged American troops---and possibly you and me. It also demonstrates that The Times is not with us, it is with the terrorists.

The "culture of treason" Times and its illegal-leaks-chasers and sources will ultimately end up with blood on their hands. American blood, our Allies' blood, and the blood of those we are trying to help and protect. The immeasurable damage they have set in motion is irreversible.

Me, I believe that no treason should go unpunished. No one is above the law. And treason is a high crime.

(Hat tip to Mike Lester for political 'toon.)

Senator Elizabeth "Liddy" Dole is fed up with Judge Terrence Boyle being "Borked" by Democrat U.S. Senators...

Well..., play it again, Sam! Democrat obstructionists of the U.S. Senate have blocked the confirmation of Judge Terrence Boyle for a seat on the federal bench during two Bush administrations---#41 and #43---and are still doing so.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for this totally well-qualified Judge to finally get an up or down vote by the full Senate, according to the Constitution. It's more than just passing curious that Boyle was voted out of the Judicary Committee a year ago and his nomination still has not been brought to the Senate floor for a vote.

What's holding it up...? Are Democrats still mining-for and manufacturing dirt? Well, actually, they're just continuing, in perpetuity, their earlier politics of personal destruction smear campaign. It's beginning to look as if blocking Boyle's confirmation has become a life-long mission for them.

Senator Elizabeth "Liddy" Dole thinks so, too. She's tired of Judge Boyle being "Borked."

Ditto that for me!

Read about it below and here.
__________
"Borking Judge Boyle"

"If you want evidence proving that the judicial confirmation process is in serious need of repair, Exhibit A would be Judge Terrence Boyle of North Carolina. Nearly 15 years ago, Judge Boyle was nominated for a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by the first President Bush.

President George W. Bush has since renominated Judge Boyle three times for the same seat — once in 2001, a second time in 2003 and a third time in 2005. Judge Boyle was finally approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee a year ago, yet he continues to patiently await action by the full Senate.

The hard-core left is opposing the Boyle nomination, despite the fact that the American Bar Association has given him its highest possible rating — "unanimously well-qualified..."

Deroy Murdock says: "Americans should punish the Times" & the Justice Dept. should prosecute the "Times-niks" who publicized the TFTP story...

Today at nationalreview, Deroy Murdock shares his viewpoint on "The Times’s manifest arrogance... (which) already is insufferable." He also allows that "The Times threatens 8.5 million New Yorkers," and that "its potentially suicidal Bush hatred has devolved into reckless endangerment of Americans from coast to coast...

More in excerpts from "All the Treason that’s Fit to Print: With great power comes great irresponsibility," below or at the above link:
__________
"...The Justice Department should prosecute the officials who leaked the TFTP story and the Times-niks who publicized it. There is nothing funny about making it easier for al Qaeda and its allies to turn Americans into body parts. Handcuffing a few disloyal newsmen and their bureaucratic sources for aiding and comforting our wartime enemies will telegraph this message.

Average Americans should punish the Times’s transgressions. Boycotting this nationally distributed paper is the easiest way to sock this snotty rag right where it smarts: in the wallet. Watching their red ink rise might make Times personnel think twice before publishing more secrets from America’s anti-al Qaeda playbook.

Meanwhile, the New York Times should adopt a new slogan: 'All the treason that’s fit to print...'”

Ann Coulter says the N.Y. Times committed treason...

According to Phil Brennan at Newsmax, Ann Coulter said: "Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: 'Head of Counterintelligence -- Al-Qaida...'" And that there is a "long list of formerly top-secret government antiterrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times," which she believes "amounted to nothing less than treason."

More about Coulter's views on the topic of treason and how seriously it has been and is now being treated in this country---in a few excerpts below. Or, you can read all of the must read piece at the above link. Another great column here, "New York Times Article Aids and Abets Terrorism," by David Limbaugh.
__________
"Observing that prior to the Vietnam War, "this country took treason seriously," she charged that Americans are now being told that newspapers have a right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press."

Liberals, she wrote, invoke 'freedom of the press' like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the First Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the New York Times building."

Freedom of the press, she explained "does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason -- or for any other crime. The First Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from the New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page One story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans ...

"The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: 'Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.'"

Citing the cases of at Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally") and Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose") who were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II, Coulter wrote that the first two were were severely punished and Pound (was) committed to a mental hospital.

"There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it," she wrote..."

Lowell Ponte says: "Sue the New York Times!"

Folks, this is a very informative *****Five Star, must read column by Lowell Ponte. It gives you some background on the megalomaniac Publisher of The New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., and its Executive Editor Bill Keller.

Ponte notes that this anti-American pair share a "far-leftist ideology" and demand that nothing interfere with the Times' "heavily-slanted news reporting."

A few excerpts are below, the entire piece at the above link.
__________
During the Vietnam War era a father tried to talk sense into his radicalized loony-left son, who had just been arrested a second time for taking part in disruptive anti-war demonstrations.
"If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier," the father asked, "which would you like to see get shot?"

"I would want to see the American get shot," replied the adolescent. "It's the other guy's country. We shouldn't be there."

That radical young man who approved the killing of American soldiers by Communists was Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. In 1992 he replaced his retiring father as publisher of what remains the most influential newspaper in the United States, the New York Times.

"We are enormously powerful, and we are very scary," this hereditary ruler and now chairman of the Times corporate empire (which also owns the Boston Globe, International Herald Tribune and other media outlets) boasted... in 2003.

In his megalomania, this un-elected enfant terrible, "Pinch" Sulzberger, has moved the New York Times so far to the ideological left that even its sports columnists were told never to contradict the Politically Correct line of Times editorials...

Keller shares his boss's far-leftist ideology. Son of the former chairman and CEO of Chevron Corporation, Keller was radicalized at Reed College and at the Times' Soviet and South African bureaus..."

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Look who LUVs The New York Times these days...

A love-match to warm Osama's tattooed heart...

Is the Grey Lady earning her bona fides for martyrdom...? Or..., is she prostituting herself to become one of the mythical 72 virgins in Islamo-fascist paradise...?

(Hat tip to Michael Ramirez for political 'toon.)

Roundup of columns related to The New York Times' traitorous publishing of top-secret anti-terrorism sources and methods...

Paul Greenberg, Editorial Page Editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has asked some thought-provoking questions today---in his must read piece, "The New York Times strikes again," here. They go like this:

"A question: Do you think that style-setter of American journalism — The New York Times — would have run its expose of still another terrorist-tracking program if it had found out about it when the program was first set in motion, in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

Would the Times have rushed the story into print and given it the front-page play it did last week if smoke was still rising from the charred ruins of the Twin Towers, and the ashes of the dead were still being excavated as around-the-clock crews sifted through that mountain of debris?

Would this story have seen print while the smell of fire and smoke still lingered over the Pentagon’s blackened walls?


Would the world have been told about this secret program — well, formerly secret program — while police and firemen and rescue crews were still trying to locate the scattered remains of United Flight 93 in a once obscure field in Pennsylvania...?

Suppose this was September 2001. Would The New York Times have revealed that various government agencies were cooperating with a European banking network to trace the movement of funds from al-Qaida’s moneymen to its operatives in the field...?

The only thing about this story that bothered me, besides its having been printed at all, was how many former G-men must have blabbed about this secret operation for word to reach The New York Times. That aspect of the story is not assuring at all. Don’t these people take oaths not to reveal classified information?

There’s no doubt the terrorists’ privacy has been violated, but isn’t that a consummation devoutly to be wished...?

Have the rights of the innocent been in any way abused?

Me, I would like to hear some answers to questions like these from the Times, rather than their smug, self-elevating justifications for their treasonous acts against America, Americans and our troops fighting a very real war against terrorists.

But I have a few questions for the Grey Lady:

If you had received a tip about the 9/11 bombings on 9/09/2001, would you have warned the Bush administration?

Would you have published a column "in the public's interest," on 9/10/2001, to inform them of the pending massacres?

Or..., did you receive a covert tip, remain silent, and wait for the fireworks?
__________
With regard to law(s) violated by the Times, here is a quote that refers to Section 798, Title 18, US Criminal Code---often referred to as the COMINT Law:

"...Schoenfeld points to a second statute, approved by Congress in 1950, that is more relevant to the question at hand -- Section 798 of the US Criminal Code dealing with the "Disclosure of Classified Information." This statute made it a federal crime for any unauthorized person to publish classified information "concerning the communication intelligence of the United States or any foreign government."

The statute was carefully crafted, as Schoenfeld points out, to focus on the vitally important area of communications intelligence (or "comint" as it is called in the trade), which was defined as "all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients."

The Congress understood that intelligence on the activities of foreign adversaries would dry up if they are tipped off as to what information we have and by what means we gathered it. Thus, the disclosure or publication of classified communications intelligence was singled out by Congress as a violation of the law..."
__________
Michelle Malkin, who has copious coverage of this topic on her blog, has a great column today here, "The terrorist-tipping Times." A bit of it below:

"The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities.

Guess what? It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have jeopardized terror-financing investigations since Sept. 11, according to the government.


I remind you of the case of the Treason Times, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation. As the New York Post reported last September, the Justice Department charged that "a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office -- potentially endangering the lives of federal agents..."


"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.

Shenon's phone tip to the Muslim charity (which occurred one day before the FBI searched the foundation's offices), Fitzgerald said, "seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel..."

Shenon's then-colleague, Judith Miller, had placed a similar call to another Muslim terrorist-front financier, the Holy Land Foundation, a few weeks before Shenon's call to the GRF...
According to Fitzgerald in court papers, Miller allegedly also warned them that "government action was imminent." The FBI raided the Holy Land Foundation's offices the day after Miller's article was published in the Times.

The Times' reporters -- surprise, surprise -- refuse to cooperate with investigators trying to identify the leakers. The government is appealing a ruling protecting the loose-lipped reporters' phone records. Which side are they on? Actions speak louder than words..."


From all the CYA statements and justifications coming out of the Times' Executive Editor Bill Keller this week, it is clear they consider themselves the fourth branch of the U.S. government---the final arbiter of what the Executive Branch, namely the Bush administration, gets to do---and the judge, jury and executioner/punisher of anyone whose actions offend them or with whom they disagree, namely anyone in the Bush administration and all Republicans in Congress. Never mind the Constitution and the will of the people.

These unelected media tyrants flagrantly violate federal law and then claim immunity from prosecution for having published highly-classified national intelligence secrets---arrogantly wrapping themselves in a nebulous "in the public interest" shield.

Soooo....., exactly why has the Times been allowed to skate for so long? Isn't it time they were put out of the aiding-and-abetting-terrorists business...?

And their editors, publisher, and leak-farming "journalists" frog-marched out of their elite offices, hauled before a federal Grand Jury and perp-walked into stoney-lonesome?

Works for me.

Monday, June 26, 2006

The hard-left mainstream media are the terrorists new best friend...


Oh, don't bother about them... they're just "the good guys" butchering a couple of Americans...

We're after the important news here... as determined by The New York Times. They're the self-annointed news tsars, doncha'know...?

(Hat tip to Ed Gamble for political 'toon.)

The New York Times buries story that included Congressman Peter King's call for prosecution of The Times...

Surprise! Whodathunk The New York Times would want to bury the story that U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) had called for the Bush administration to bring criminal charges against their very own formerly-prestigious and credible newspaper for publishing---on its front page---highly-classified intel information illegally leaked to them? After the Administration had warned them against doing so.

Now, why do you s'pose they'd want to bury a big story like that...? Could it be that the news of their scandalous fragging of the Administration and all the rest of us is all over the information highway like a white-hot blazing blowback in their faces. Clearly, arrogance is not their short suit.

It appears The Times has violated the Section 798 of Title 18, the so-called Comint statute. "Section 798 reads, in part: 'Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both' [emphasis added]..."

Today, President GWBush called the publication "disgraceful." He said "We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."

While The Times is in perpetual hot pursuit of Bush and cutting-and-running in Iraq, it is fast flushing the last shreds of its credibility and reputation down a black hole---and making itself a pariah among ethical media, our military and all of red-state America.

While the high-and-mighty are self-destructing and falling, the White House would be just as well off to yank their press passes---to remove the besmirch factor from their midst. And then prosecute them to the letter of the COMINT Law.

A bit of it below, all of it here. Related column, "Bush assails program's disclosure," about President Bush's response to The Times' publishing of a vital national secret here.
__________
"New York Times Buries King Prosecution Story"

"The New York Times buried a report that the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee was urging the Bush administration to seek criminal charges against the newspaper for reporting on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

...Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., blasted the Times’ decision last week to report that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

King’s call for a prosecution of the Times was a lead story on cable news shows, wire services... and major Internet sites... Still, the Times on Monday decided to bury the story in an article about the National Security Agency’s wiretap program..."

The bad-news-all-the-time mainstream media have a one-track collective mind... when it comes to the American military and the war...


Problem is... it's on the wrong track. The smear the troops and lose the war track...

(Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for political 'toon.)

The American mainstream media treated the mutilation and beheading of American soldiers as a ho-hum non-story...

This is another example of the national mainstream media downplaying huge events where publication of same would engender sympathy for any American troops in the War Against Terrorism---this time about the heinous butchering of two American soldiers by terrorists in Iraq.

It's more than clear now that the hard-left MSM will rush to report anything negative about our troops' behaviors. That's good news to them. It's also clear that they will downplay or bury any barbaric act of terrorism against our troops---even public mutilation and beheading.

The mainstream media have taken so severe a turn to the anti-war political left that they can make a conscious choice to operate in a manner that undermines and demoralizes our military---in the hope that they will lose the war. That way they can blame the loss on a Republican president.

They did it to Richard Nixon and defamed the 50K troops lost in the Vietnam War and all our returning troops. In doing so, they caused the deaths or subjugation to brutal Communism of 1M South Vietnamese.

Whatever we do, we must stop the MSM and the rest of the anti-war traitors from repeating that shameful history and turning the Iraq War and greater War Against Terrorism in to a Vietnam re-run.

Read about it below and in Matt Towery's excellent piece here.
__________
"Media downplayed mutilation"

"Coverage by national media of the two American servicemen tortured, murdered and mutilated in Iraq was revealing.

This gruesome event overseas was reported here against a backdrop of debate on Capitol Hill about whether and when U.S. forces should withdraw from Iraq.

What dramatic impact would this deliberate butchery have had on Americans' opinion of the war effort if most newspapers across the nation chose to make banner headlines of it?

Some did. More typical, however, was the editorial decision at the nation's largest newspaper, USA Today. The full story of these atrocities could only be found deep into the first section of the daily edition.

Liberal media conspiracy...?

...it's important for news organizations to understand that this kind of editorial reasoning only feeds the widespread belief that a largely liberal Third Estate manages the news to fit their world view, instead of reporting it to reflect the views of most readers.

This is too often done by giving top billing to comparatively insignificant stories...

In coverage of the Iraq war, American troops are often cast as the villains due to the misdeeds of a few. But when they are the victims of ghastly war crimes, it warrants far less focus.

This incident has the potential to galvanize the nation in support of its troops, if not of the Iraq war itself. In days past, the public's reaction would have been swift and certain. Unspeakable mutilation and desecration of young American servicemen would have brought out American flags, and would have become a rallying point for protests and demands for retribution.

Undoubtedly, the end result would have been a big boost to support for America's war efforts.
But these are different times. The reaction to a story can only be as strong as the story itself, and how it is presented. It's hard to imagine that the nation can rally when many of its largest news sources choose to treat this story as just one of many in the course of the day.

Just a few new killings - that just happen to feature barbaric acts such as slicing organs and other body parts...

But this is not a partisan issue. Anyone who believes this story deserves anything less than top billing in every newspaper and on every television broadcast is seriously out of touch. Not just out of touch with the feelings of the American people, but with the feelings of human beings everywhere...

...when I see such a horrific and revealing story largely brushed aside by the news media, my only proper response as a living, breathing human being is outrage...

I'm willing to bet that, because these mutilation murders of our soldiers weren't reported as they should have been, most Americans will go on with no opinion at all.

And that's a tragedy, too..."

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Gee.... Wonder why The New York Times doesn't publish the Democrats' "Better Plan?"


Oh yeah... That's right... It's not top-secret, classified intel information. So it isn't titillating enough.

It's just empty rhetoric in search of a plan that, as we can see, doesn't exist.

(Hat tip to Vic Harville for political 'toon.)

The New York Times... Islamo-fascist terrorists' new best friend...


(Hat tip to ThePeoplesCube.com for very creative political poster, which I snagged at MichelleMalkin.com)

Chairman of U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee calls for prosecution of The New York Times...

Ditto that for PelicanPost! The #1 anti-war, anti-Bush Administration, pro-terrorist tyrant of the mainstream media---The New York Times---has again taken it upon itself to blow off the rule of law, the Executive Branch of the federal government, our national security interests, and the safety of the American people. Not to mention endangering our troops who are prosecuting the War Against Terrorism.

Divulging national secrets is a federal crime. So is acquiring and publishing those national secrets. None of the colluding perpetrators of the crimes involved in this divulging and publishing of highly-classified government intelligence information about the electronic tracking of terrorist financing are above the law.

A federal criminal investigation should immediately commence to find the source of the illegal leak. And all involved in this crime---including other MSM newspapers that also published the top-secret information and endangered national security---must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Read more in excerpts below and at Breitbart.
__________
"The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush Administration... to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, the reporters, the editors and the publisher." "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous..."

The New York Times, with two of its journalists as conduits, aided and abetted the transmission and illegal publication of national secrets...

Folks, there are two *****Five Star, must read columns that will appear in the July 3, 2006 edition of the Weekly Standard, both of which go to the illegality and political motivation of The New York Times' expose of the highly classified "Swift" program to track the money trails that lead to intelligence information about covert funding for terrorism against the United States and its citizens.

The two outstanding columns are: "Leaks and the Law The case for prosecuting the New York Times," by Gabriel Schoenfeld here, and "National Security Be Damned: The guiding philosophy on West 43rd Street," by Heather Mac Donald here.

Below are excerpts from the Schoenfeld piece that reveal the enabling U.S. law that would allow for prosecution of The New York Times and, in my opinion, its journalists who aided and abetted the transfer of highly-classified national security intel from a covert source, wrote-up that illegally leaked intel and provided it to their employer who, despite warnings from the Bush Administration, willfully published it anyway. The Times' illegal expose was prominently placed on page one under a banner headline sure to warn the terrorists their money transfers were being traced---thus undermining the President/Commander-in-Chief, the intelligence community and the War Against Terror.

The willful publication of this illegally-provided highly-classified information violated the law described in the following:

"...if the editors of the paper (NYTimes) were to take a look at the U.S. Criminal Code, they would find that they have run afoul not of the Espionage Act but of another law entirely: Section 798 of Title 18, the so-called Comint statute...

Section 798 reads, in part:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added]..."

Heather MacDonald says: "BY NOW IT'S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.

The Times's latest revelation of a national security secret appeared on last Friday's front page--where no al Qaeda operative could possibly miss it. Under the deliberately sensational headline, "Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror," the Times blows the cover on a highly targeted program to locate terrorist financing networks...

The administration strongly urged the New York Times not to expose this classified program, and for good reason. According to the Times itself, the program has proven vital in hunting down international killers...

Now that the Times has blown the cover on this terror-tracking initiative, sophisticated terrorists will figure out how to evade it, according to the Treasury's top counterterrorism official, Stuart Levey, speaking to the Wall Street Journal. The lifeblood of international terrorism--cash--will once again flow undetected...

The truth the Times evades is that while every power, public or private, can be misused, the mere possibility of abuse does not mean that a necessary power should be discarded. Instead, the rational response is to create checks that minimize the risk of abuse...

The Times's ritual invocation of the "public interest" cannot disguise the weakness of their argument for revealing this highly successful antiterror program... Do they seriously believe the U.S. government should not exploit technological tools in the war on terror?

Al Qaeda has long worked to manipulate the media in its favor. It can disband that operation now, knowing that, unbidden, America's most powerful newspaper is looking out for its interests..."


There is much written on this topic throughout the blogosphere, not the least of which is Michelle Malkin's roundup of the Anti-Blabbermouth Army of Photoshoppers' posters condemning The New York Times for aiding the terrorists and endangering our troops. She also links to an excellent column by Andrew C. McCarthy, "The Media’s War Against the War Continues: The New York Times and Los Angeles Times expose a classified anti-terrorism program," at National Review---which is well worth the read.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Only in our dreams....


Makes sense. Iran's deranged Prez Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been gettin' all th' attention an' offer of goodies that N. Korea's deranged Prez Kim Jong Il wants for hisself...

Since we're dreamin' here, maybe we could figure out a way to get 'em mad enough to "test-fire" into each other's nuclear toys... simultaneously.

Kinda'like mutually-assured destruction... or one of those kill-two-birdbrains-with-one-bomb sorta'thangs.

(Hat tip to John Deering for political 'toon.)

These guys stood before the American people and lied to them about George W. Bush and about Saddam Hussein's WMD... overandoverandoverandover...


And they're not the only ones among the hard-left to do so... for three long years...

Well, how about some apologies and retractions, Carter and Kerry...? And Ted Kennedy, George Soros, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, moveon.org... and all the rest of the lyin' anti-war hard-left... What say you?

Any of you guys have the cajones to acknowledge the truth and fess up that you were wrong...? And apologize? Or will you just continue to lie and deceive the folks?

(Hat tip to FrontPageMagazine where I snagged the above pix.)

Well, well... As it now turns out, Bush did NOT lie about Saddam's WMD... and his hard-left perpetual "Bush lied" detractors are in stunned denial...

Folks, this is a *****Five Star, must read column about the breaking news yesterday that a newly classified document obtained by U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra reveals that over 500 weapons of mass biological/chemical destruction had, in fact, been found in post-invasion Iraq.

The projectile weapons were filled with poisonous gasses---sarin and mustard gasses, to be exact---some of the mustard gas probably degraded, but sarin gas still completely effective and deadly.

I saw both Santorum and Hoekstra on several TV shows yesterday and this morning. On shows where Democrat pundits or hosts were present, they were minimizing and pooh-poohing the importance of this news and detracting from it in every way possible. Anything to keep from admitting they were wrong.

The hard-left just can't let go of their false claim that "Bush lied" about WMD. They've ranted that mantra so much, it's too burned into their brains for them to come out of total denial mode that Saddam's WMD existed when Bush said they existed---even when faced with documented facts.

See more below and here. Me, I recommend reading the entire piece with all its helpful links to documentation. Also, there is a column here, "The Worst of Intentions," that includes a March 6, 2003 account of "the United Nations' report on Iraq's "Unresolved Disarmament Issues" about Saddam Hussein's unaccounted for WMD-related material.

"It stated that the "long list" of "unaccounted for" WMD-related material catalogued in December of 1998--the month inspections ended in Iraq--and beyond were still "unaccounted for." The list included: up to 3.9 tons of VX nerve agent (though inspectors believed Iraq had enough VX precursors to produce 200 tons of the agent and suspected that VX had been "weaponized"); 6,526 aerial chemical bombs; 550 mustard gas shells; 2,062 tons of Mustard precursors; 15,000 chemical munitions; 8,445 liters of anthrax; growth media that could have produced "3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent." Moreover, Iraq was obligated to account for this material by providing "verifiable evidence" that it had, in fact, destroyed its proscribed materials.

The same report noted "a surge of activity in the missile technology field in the past four years" and that while 817 of the 819 Scud missiles Iraq had imported had been accounted for, inspectors did not know the number of missiles Iraq had indigenously produced or still possessed. Similarly, while inspectors had accounted for 73 of Iraq's 75 declared "special" warheads, doubts remained that Iraqi officials were truthful about how many had actually been manufactured.


It acknowledged that inspectors had found a handful of 122mm chemical rocket warheads but noted that this discovery may only be the "tip of the iceberg" since several thousand, in the inspectors' judgment, were still unaccounted for...

Finally, the report declared that there appears to be no "choke points" to prevent Iraq from producing anthrax at the same level it did before 1991, that large-scale Iraqi production of botulinum toxin "could be rapidly commenced," and that given Iraq's history of concealment, "it cannot be excluded that it has retained some capability with regard to VX..."

Sounds like a deadly chemical/biological WMD program to me. And we know it took only 5 projectiles filled with Sarin gas for genocidal war criminal Saddam Hussein to annihilate 5,500 Kurds during the Persian Gulf War.
__________
"Liars"

"The antiwar Left’s claim that “Bush lied” about Saddam Hussein possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction has itself been proven a lie.

Last night Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, released the declassified overview of a report produced by the National Ground Intelligence Center, the group that has searched Iraq for Saddam Hussein’s WMDs since 2004. Its stunning revelation: there were WMDs, after all.

Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist. That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, noted this is significant, since “the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything.”

The report further justified President Bush’s rationale for toppling Saddam: he had WMDs that he may have transferred to terrorists....

All of which makes the anti-Bush, antiwar Left’s rhetoric sound more shrill and opportunistic than it did at the time...

...rhetorical assaults made against a sitting president during a time of war would be somewhat less vicious, egregious, or gratuitous were they born of heartfelt conviction. However, yesterday’s disclosure was not exactly news. For one thing, many of the “Bush lied”/”Saddam never had WMDs” brigade had thundered that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons before, during, and after the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Only after the Soros-funded "base" of their party made a pro-war stance political suicide did most of today's critics turn against the president, the war, and the mission they had sent more than 100,000 American troops to die achieving..."

In overwhelming vote, 86-13, U.S. Senate rejects troops withdrawal from Iraq before mission is complete...

Great news! Two votes taken in the U.S. Senate this morning were solid victories for staying the course in Iraq until the mission is complete and the Iraqi government, military and police can stand on their own to protect their government, infrastructure, resources and people. This is a win for Republicans, George W. Bush and our military who are prosecuting the Iraq War front of the War Against Terrorism.

It appears the first of the Democrat-sponsored measures was politically motivated to benefit Senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold, who are potential contenders for the Democrat presidential nomination by their party in 2008 and interested in appealing to the Democrat base. Only 13 Democrats voted "yes" on that amendment.

Since Senators terms are staggered, with 1/3 of Senate seats being up for re-election every two years, some of those Democrat Senators voting "no" will likely stand for re-election in 2006 or 2008---and are likely to be inclined to come down on the side of this issue that is supported by the majority of voters in their various states.

More below and here.
__________
"The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly rejected a Democratic call to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by years' end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular.

"Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete...

In an 86-13 vote, the Senate turned back a Democratic proposal that would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, with redeployments beginning this year. A second vote on another Democratic proposal to begin withdrawing this year, but with no timetable for the war's end, was planned immediately afterward. ...it was offered as an amendment to an annual military bill and expected to fail, mostly along partisan lines..."

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Now, here's a timeline for getting out of Iraq that the cut-and-run crowd won't cotton to...


It's a timeline the git-outta'-Irak-now cut-and-runners would go for... about as soon as Elvis comes out of hiding...

(Hat tip to Chip Bok for political 'toon.)

North Korean and Iranian birds of a feather...


That would be two munchkin cuckoo-birds... with an illusive grip on sanity... and a pathological bent towards nuclear blackmail...

And nuclear destruction...

(Hat tip to Eric Devericks for political 'toon.)

U.S. missile defense system is reported to now be "operational," rather than in "test mode."

Well, the heat is rising on the provocative move by wigged-out Pres. Kim Jong Il of North Korea to allegedly prepare an intercontinental ballistic missile for "test firing," which has---to some degree---been confirmed by satellite pictures.

According to a posting at news.yahoo, the U.S. has moved its missile defense system from test mode to operational mode, in response to the alarming information. However, Yahoo is quoting an anonymous "defense official" as their source. Developing...

More below and at above link.
__________
"US makes missile defense system operational"

"The United States has moved its ground-based interceptor missile defense system from test mode to operational amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed a Washington Times report that the
Pentagon has activated the system, which has been in the developmental stage for years...

U.S. officials say evidence such as satellite pictures suggests Pyongyang may have finished fueling a Taepodong-2 missile, which some experts said could reach as far as Alaska.

"There's real caution in how to characterize it so as to not be provocative in our own approach," the defense official said of the move to activate the system. The Pentagon and State Department have said a North Korean missile launch would be seen as "provocative..."

Bush nominees to federal court bench to be acted on by Senate Judiciary Committee this summer....

It should be a long hot---perhaps red hot---summer in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hopefully all three nominees will make it to the Senate floor for an up or down vote. It's about time!

Be on the lookout for William Haynes' possible second hearing and full-Senate confirmation vote first, with Michael Wallace and Terrence Boyle to follow. Boyle's confirmation vote has been long-stalled by obstructionist Democrats' phony charges of conflict of interest, even though Boyle was approved and reported out by the Judiciary Committee.

Obstructive politics of personal destruction has become the order of the day for hard left Senate Democrats who have fought approval of all GWBush nominees to the federal courts---especially Roberts and Alito for the Supreme Court.

PelicanPost will be reporting on the progress of approval of these nominees. With any luck at all, Specter won't drag his feet in shepherding these guys through. He can't seem to get his mind wrapped around anything but attention-gathering and throwing cold water on the NSA surveillance program to track foreign terrorists' communications with their contacts in the U.S.A.

More on the judicial nominees below and here. Related article on this topic, with regard to Sen. Lindsay Graham's (R-SC) "blurring the distinction between Democrats' repeated use of obstructionist tactics and Republicans' principled treatment of judicial nominees"---a practice that has been harmful to Republicans---at powerline.
__________
"Senate Set for Busy Summer on Judicial Nominees"

"The Senate Judiciary Committee is quietly maneuvering to act on two of President Bush's appellate court nominees this summer, while a third nominee awaiting action on the Senate floor is slowly moving closer to a vote...

A GOP aide said the Judiciary Committee is moving toward a vote on William Haynes' confirmation to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in July.... Chairman Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) is likely hold a second hearing, at which time Haynes would be given the opportunity to defend himself from Democrat attacks for his role as general counsel at the Department of Defense...
The Bush Administration... is agreeable to a second hearing for Haynes...

Another nominee, Michael Wallace, who was tapped by Bush for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is also slated to get his first hearing before the committee in July... Wallace has com

Sunday, June 18, 2006

This one's for all you great Fathers out there...


With a special shout out to our military Fathers who are on duty around the world... away from their wives and children on Fathers' Day.

We all love and support you, our President supports you, and the two chambers of Congress just voted their support and war-funding for you and resolved to stay the course in the War Against Terrorism.

Thank you---and all our brave troops---for all you do. You are ever in our prayers.

(Hat tip to Bill Day for the Happy Fathers' Day 'toon.)

Friday, June 16, 2006

'Toon round-up from the week that was...!



"W" scored big-time in the June Surprise week that was...

Zarqawi was sent to his last reward, leaving behind a treasure trove of intel to be exploited in myriad raids to wipe out scores of terrorists in the al Qaeda in Iraq network... and round up almost 800 more. Terrorist-nests in Baghdad have been found out and cleaned out of large weapons caches.

"W" made a surprise trip to Iraq to check on the troops and check out the new Prime Minister and the recently appointed heads of the Ministries of Defense and Security---and thank them for serving in the critical jobs they hold. And to assure all of them that the U.S. is going to stay the course in Iraq and in the War Against Terror.

Karl Rove was finally cut loose from the political prosecution in search of bagging a top White House official in the Bush Administration. And Democrats all over were livid and gasping in disbelief that they would not get to see Rove "frog-walked out of the White House" and perp-walked into jail. Tsk... Tsk...

The Senate approved "W's" requested $66B supplemental military defense spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, which had already been approved by the House. The Senate also strongly rejected (96-3) a proposed bill to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by year's end.

The House of Representatives soundly approved a Resolution to stay the course in Iraq and support and thank our troops and other personnel working hard there to stand up the Iraqis, so we can stand down---when this major part of the War Against Terror has been won, in a critical and strategic part of the Middle East.

More good news came out that: "With the deficit this year seen at about $270 billion, Bush’s promise to cut it in half by 2009 looks to be an achievable plan, potentially reached three years early. And, "since May 2003, the President’s fiscal policies have created 5.27 million new jobs, $1.16 trillion in added economic output, an 8.9% gain in productivity and $14.2 trillion jump in personal wealth." Investor's Business Daily

Also coming out was the very important fact that the confidence of the American people in their President and successes in the Iraq War, Afghanistan War and the greater War Against Terror got a big boost.

All in all, it was an amazing week that will be long remembered. One for the history books... and a president's legacy.

(Hat tip to Dana Summers for political 'toon.)

Too late, Dems and Jersey Girls. You already forfeited the match to Ann Coulter, by throwing up your assumed victimhood shields of infallibility to protect yourselves from having to debate the issues you addressed---both before she wrote her new book... and after.

Now, her book is #1 on the Bestseller Lists---even the liberal-elite Republican-hating New York Times' Bestseller List... which probably has them in the throes of apoplexy right about now... and Ann Coulter laughing all the way to the bank.

How sweet it is...

(Hat tip to Mike Lester for political 'toon.)

Smart move, Osama-baby. Designate an al Zarqawi replacement who already has a big fat more-than-generous price on his head... Might as well paint a tomato-red $25M bullseye on his back. But, that's cool...

Homeland Security's and the Green Zone's phones will be ringing off the hook... aha!

(Hat tip to Ed Gamble for political 'toon.)

Guess this one will go down in Democrat history as the Rove Chronicles... about the biggest fish that ever got away when they just knew their hook was in there deep and dirty...

Nannie, nannie boo-boo...!

(Hat tip to Vic Harville for political 'toon.)

A few leaps of joy, pirouettes, cartwheels... and a little soft-shoe in the streets...

Sure beats the hyped-up, long-awaited "frog-march" for Karl Rove that was promised to frothing-at-the-bit Democrats by none other than former Democrat "Ambassador" Joe Wilson..., upon whose fake story they depended to take down the top Republican strategist and embarass President George W. Bush...

Now, they not only will not get the "frog march out of the White House," they won't get the perp walk they craved for so long either.

Soooo....., what are Democrat no-longer-hopefuls going to do to lyin' Joe Wilson IV for having whipped them up into a feeding frenzy for such an empty, earth-ending let-down...?

Hmmmm....?

(Hat tip to Chuck Asay for political 'toon.)

Alberto came into the sunshine state as a big honkin' media-hyped threat... and went out as an embarassing dripping-wet whimper.

If there hadn't been an on-going drought to tout as a reason to be thankful for the heavy rains, the disaster-news chasers would have had a total news deficit...

Made you feel a little sorry for them as they sheepishly tried to justify their standing someplace out in the plum' nearlies showing us waves not big enough to surf and every little breeze that rustled through the palm fronds.

Sheeesh....!

(Hat tip to Michael Ramirez for satirical 'toon.)

Well..., we already knew dead people occasionally show up as having voted. Now, we know they've also been busy taking F.E.M.A. for a ride.

Sorta' makes you wonder where they dig up the brain-dead people who run the elections commissions and federal departments like F.E.M.A., don't it...?

(Hat tip to Ed Gamble for political 'toon.)

Nothing new here... It's the same ol', same ol' re-cycled Kennedy bad-acts news. The faces change from time to time..., but the change-the-subject and quickly-cover-up m. o. stays the same.

Kinda'like a family protection racket...

(Hat tip to Steve Kelley for political 'toon.)


So goes rank evidence that got plea-bargained away... Rank has its privileges, doncha'kno...?

(Hat tip to Nick Anderson for political 'toon.)

President Bush disses the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition from CA, NM, AZ and TX... won't meet with them regarding border security problems...

President G.W. Bush appears to be wearing blinders when it comes to the necessity of protecting the American people and this country from terrorists who have an easy time sneaking into the U.S. by land, across our pitifully unsecured borders.

The willful blinders are there, even though he and his administration have information confirming that OTM potential terrorists have already entered this country from Mexico.

First, Bush snubbed Republican members of the Texas State Legislature who came to Washington to meet with him regarding inadequate security and resulting problems along Texas' border with Mexico. Now, he has refused to meet with a coalition of Sheriffs from all U.S. states that border Mexico. Apparently he is too stubborn to listen to them or the vast majority of the rest of us Americans who want our borders secured and permanently protected from all illegal entry.

I watched and listened to Bush's press conference about Zarqawi's death and Iraq's now-complete government the other day. He stated "It's my job to protect the American people." I agree. That is his sworn Constitutional duty. He is also Chief Law Enforcer for the whole country. As such, it's his sworn Constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law and see to it that all U.S. laws are enforced.

Yet, he is not enforcing all border, immigration, labor, social security and IRS laws or doing all he can to protect the American people---especially those on the front lines of the illegal-alien invasion into this country from Mexico through California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas, from where they disperse all around the country to break our laws and prey on our people.

Poor Mexicans looking for work are not the only ones coming across that border. Crime rates and law enforcement costs have gone up in those border states and other locations around the country---due to criminal illegal-alien sex-offenders, pedophiles, murderers, thieves, drugs and people smugglers, MS-13 gangs, and potential terrorists.

The majority of Americans have had enough. We've raised our voices, posted on our blogs, and petitioned our state and national legislators and the President to take corrective action to effectively preserve and protect the rule of law, the sovereignty of the U.S., and the American people. But, like the Texas Republican legislators and the Southwestern Sheriff's Border Coalition, we have been dissed and ignored and our concerns have not been addressed or acted upon.

2,500 National Guard troops or 6,000 new Border Patrol Agents, only 1/3 of which will be on duty in revolving shifts at any given time, is not a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to secure our borders---and not even that many are required to be in place until sometime in 2008. This is a poor excuse for border security and preventing terrorist acts in this country. And neither Americans, nor their representatives in Congress have voted for open borders---or a North American Union.

What is it going to take, another 9/11 or an al Zarqawi-style operation attacking American citizens and infrastructure on American soil before we can count on our President and Congress to do their jobs? I hope not.

This issue will definitely be a consideration for me when I vote in November. How about you...?

More below and at the link provided below.
__________
"Bush declines to meet with border officials" here

"President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.

... some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.

Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings. "We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico...

Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border...

In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.

Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response... "It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues," Glancey said...

The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director. Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.

"We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late," Poe said. "We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction."

Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.

"The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security," Ramirez said. "It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border."

Democrat U.S. House Rep. William Jefferson was stripped of his seat on the House Ways & Means Committee today...

Congressman Jefferson refused for weeks to voluntarily remove himself from this powerful House committee, rounded up the House Democrats' Black Caucus to defend him, and played the race card---all in a last ditch effort to hold on to that coveted committee seat.

While he has been involuntarily removed from his committee post, he refuses to step down from his Congressional seat. Even though it's widely known that the F.B.I. has him on tape accepting what is alleged to be a bribe and found $90K in cash stuffed into frozen food packages and stored in his home freezer.

Although not yet having to face a federal Grand Jury or be indicted, Jefferson's known actions and his alleged actions are enough to bring dishonor to the House of Representatives and bring the taint of corruption to his fellow Democrats in Congress. At the same time alleged actions of other Democrat Representatives, Allan Mollohan and Bill McDermott, and at least one Democrat Senator, Minority Leader Harry Reid, have been called into question as to suspected ethics violations and/or corruption.

And then there's Democrat Rep. Patrick Kennedy who just pled guilty to a DUI, while skating on reckless driving, running over a government barrier, and lying to police officers. Not to forget Democrat Rep. Cynthia McKinney, whose recent assault on a Capitol police officer is still before a Grand Jury.

If this had been former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay filmed taking an alleged bribe and found to have stashed $90K in his freezer, the entire Democrat Party, The New York Times, and the rest of the hard-left mainstream media would have been all over him like white on rice. They would have crucified him. But they're quiet as church-mice about the Democrat crowd mentioned above.

It's strange bordering on outright weird that the Democrats and MSM have such a high tolerance for ethics violations, law-breaking, corruption or falls from grace by the likes of Democrats Bill Clinton and William Jefferson, when they have zero tolerance for even the faintest slight or perceived failing of any Republican. When it comes to Republicans, they eagerly engage in political opposition research, smearing, and all manner of piling on.

Yet, they call themselves the party against corruption.

More about this below and here.
__________
"Rep. Jefferson Ousted from House Committee"

"The House stripped embattled Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of his committee seat on Friday, one day after Democrats recommended taking action against the Louisiana lawmaker ensnared in a bribery scandal.

The move came without debate or dissent, and capped an election-year effort by House Democrats to seize the political high ground on the issue of lawmaker ethics.

The action came after Jefferson refused to step aside voluntarily from the House Ways and Means Committee until the corruption probe was completed. The drive to remove him from the committee, led by the Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, sparked protests by black lawmakers who said Jefferson was being singled out unfairly...

On Thursday night, Democrats voted 99-58 to strip Jefferson of his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, with jurisdiction over taxes, trade, Social Security, Medicare and more...

Jefferson has not been indicted and maintains his innocence, although two men have been convicted in the probe and the FBI says it found $90,000 in bribe money in a food freezer in the congressman's home..."

Newsflash! U.S. House of Representatives' House Resolution 861 passed this morning with flying colors...!

Good news, folks! House Resolution 861 has passed this morning with flying colors in the U.S. House of Representatives. This should show our troops and the fledgling Iraqi government that we will stand with them and, as President George W. Bush has clearly stated about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, "when they can stand up, we will stand down."

Unfortunately 149 Democrats voted not to stay the course in Iraq, as did 1 Independent. Five sat on the fence and voted "present." And, for some mysterious reason, 19 House members did not vote. Could be because it's Friday.

Frankly, I don't believe anything short of personal illness or a death in the family should have kept anyone from voting on this most critical issue of our time. Like you, I would have dragged myself there to vote in support of our troops, the War Against Terror, the new Iraqi government, and staying the course until the government, security forces and infrastructure are on solid ground as to governance, functioning and protecting their own country, resources and people.

The 153 defectors, including abstainers and fence-sitters who voted "present," could find that their decisions will come back to haunt them when voters go to the polls in their home districts come November.

"FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 288
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined) H-RES 861 YEA-AND-NAY 16-Jun-2006 11:17 AM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary"

YEAS:
Republicans: 214 Democrats: 42 Independents: 0 Voting Present: 3 Not Voting: 12

NAYS:
Republicans: 3 Democrats: 149 Independents: 1 Voting Present: Not Voting: 7

TOTALS:
Yeas: 256 Nays: 153 Present: 5 Not Voting: 19

For the list referred to above as to who voted and how they voted, go to the following link:
clerk.house.gov, a link I came across courtesy of Drudge Report.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

About those terrorist enemy combatants that committed asymetrical warfare suicide at GITMO...

Democrats have found an asymetical warfare maneuver they like.

Just think..., if they are this happy that three enemy combatants committed suicide by hanging, you can just imagine how ecstatic they would be if the other 86 who prosecuted an asymetrical warfare suicide-by-hunger-strike operation had succeeded...

The New York Times could have published an editorial homage to the poor, mistreated innocent victims of bad ol' GITMO.

And Michael Moore could have made a commemorative film about the assumed abuse that drove them to despair and their coordinated asymetrical-warfare suicides---to make a political statement.

After which, a delighted DNC could feature it at their wake for the heroic victims of Guantanamo... who fell from death-by-self-starving... And... er..., by dangling at the end of a bedsheet...

Not exactly your typical brave, hard-fighting warriors and heroes who have fallen honorably... while actually in the line of fire during battle.

(Hat tip to Mike Lester for political 'toon.)

'Nuff said....

(Hat tip to Daryl Cagle for political 'toon.)

U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Michigan police re search and seizure without knocking and waiting first...

Today's Associated Press article excerpted below, about the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360 case, is---as you will see---written with a biased tone and slant. Which is the rule, rather than the exception, for the AP.

I call it news with an agenda and an attitude---a bad attitude and practice that displays liberal ideological bias, bordering on indoctrination. Which, of course is the intended purpose. Fair and balanced reporting and allowing the readers to decide is either not a concept they understand or not one to which they are willing to subscribe. Or both.

The article neglected to state clearly that the ruling was for Michigan and against Hudson. They also leave readers with the false impression that there is a "knock and announce protection" in the U.S. Constitution---which there is not. What happened was that a long-standing precedent, of miss-interpreting the Constitution to include something that is not in it, got struck down.

In my opinion, reasonable search and seizure does not mean the police have to give suspected criminals advance notice that would allow them to abscond or flush evidence before the police can get inside the door. It is absurd for anyone to advocate for a procedural requirement that hamstrings the police in the apprehension of criminals and obtaining evidence.

It's made all too clear in this article, that the AP is more than just passing unhappy with what they perceive to be the conservative tilt of the Court. A word of advice to them: Get over it!

Read it and see for yourself, below and here.
__________
"High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches"

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices. The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote. But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench... She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion....

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.

In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent. "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members..."

Ann Coulter wowed Jay Leno's audience, bringing the house down with her quick-witted repartee and glee at winning the all-out war against her...!

After a week or more of word-bomb assaults on her in response to her new book, "Godless, The Church of Liberalism," Ann Coulter was in rare form on Jay Leno's show.

It was clear that Coulter was delighted that her detractors' outcries, attempts to silence her, and attempts to have her book banned by media outlets---a repeat of what liberals and the MSM did when Hillary Clinton et al were hysterical about Joe Klein's book about Hillary---not only failed, but also helped send her books flying off the shelves into the hands of eager readers.

You gotta' love it! Coulter's detractors succeeded only in creating their own collective spanking and proving to the world how impotent they have become.

Some of it below, the rest here.
__________
"Liberals may hate Ann Coulter, but the folks in the audience of Jay Leno’s "Tonight Show” roared their approval of the controversial author when she was introduced on Wednesday night.
Asked by Leno to explain all the controversy surrounding her No. 1 bestselling book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Coulter said: "Well, I wrote a book and liberals were hysterical. Every time I write a book liberals are hysterical. It happens all the time.”

Noting that Leno had joked about her the night before, saying that like the Wicked Witch in "The Wizard of Oz” she had a house fall on her as a result of her book, Ann countered: "I just dropped my house on the mainstream media.” The audience cheered.

Ann explained that before the book came out she gave it to her friends, including liberals, and not one of them complained about her remarks about the so-called Jersey Girls.

"Not my friends, not my editors, not the lawyers and not the liberals, pulled out the chapter on the Jersey Girls,” she said. Coulter has drawn fire from some – including Hillary Clinton – for attacking the four New Jersey (war) widows... Coulter accused the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.”

Commenting on Leno’s complaint that political discourse nowadays is so nasty, Coulter said: "We hear this all the time, about how civil things were back when there were only three TV stations” and nobody could talk back to the liberals.

Now, she said, there has suddenly been an alleged "disruption of civility” only because conservatives can talk back thanks to talk radio, the Internet and Fox News..."

Asked if she is hurt by liberal attacks on her, Coulter said she wears them "as a badge of honor.” She added that she was surprised that liberals have failed to object to being called "Godless,” and have concentrated their fire on one small part of one chapter, when she criticized the Jersey Girls..."

Big News! "Deficit Dwindles Thanks to Bush's Tax Cuts"

Had you noticed that the Democrats have been curiously quiet about one of their stock agenda topics that is usually a must-carp-against issue---the national deficit? The silence has been deafening.

Well, now we know why the silent roar. Statistics show that there has been a dramatic drop in the deficit, due to President George W. Bush's tax cut plan. And the Republican Majority's getting that plan through the U.S. Congress.

Yes, the Congressional Republicans deserve some credit here, too, since they had to fight to get the tax cuts passed in both the House and Senate---and fight later to keep time-limited tax cut provisions from expiring. They will also have to continue their fight to make remaining time-limited tax-cut provisions permanent. And the rest of us must make sure Republicans remain in control of both chambers in order to accomplish that.

Soooo....., isn't it about time to shout the good news from the rooftops and give credit where credit is clearly earned and due? Republicans don't have to follow the bad-news-all-the-time proliferators' example. We need to aggressively get all the good news out there for a change!

You've gotta' read the outstanding good-news facts, below and here. And, please spread the word.
__________
"The Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) ran an editorial yesterday that addressed the lack of credit given to the Bush Administration for the improvement seen in the nation’s budget deficit.

Two years ago, President Bush was criticized when he vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009. The 2004 budget deficit was forecasted at $521 billion, or 4.5% of GDP. Since May 2003, the President’s fiscal policies have created 5.27 million new jobs, $1.16 trillion in added economic output, an 8.9% gain in productivity and $14.2 trillion jump in personal wealth, reported IBD.

Bush’s ridiculed tax cuts have without a doubt caused the economy to grow. Proof can be seen in the numbers.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that receipts in the first eight months of the year showed a 12.8% increase, only outdone by last year’s 15.5% rise. These improvements mark the trend in economic progress made by the Bush Administration, and other administration successes that the liberal media has failed to report.

As tax revenues continue to pour in, will the national media ever recognize that Bush is on the right track to fulfilling his promise to the American people? The Boston Globe labeled the President’s plan to cut the federal deficit as “unlikely.” The publication also quoted Robert Bixby, head of the Concord Coalition, when he said the plan was “not credible...”

Last year, Treasury Secretary John Snow was criticized when he said “the President’s legacy will be one of having significantly reduced the deficit in his time...” Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution analyst, described the Snow’s prediction using words such as “laughable” and “pathetic,” completely undermining his creditability....

Even as Congress continues to spend more and more money..., the deficit is dwindling and no longer remains as a key concern to the media. With the deficit this year seen at about $270 billion, Bush’s promise to cut it in half by 2009 looks to be an achievable plan, potentially reached three years early.

Bush’s economic success has been ignored in most all cases by the mass media... The liberal media cannot admit to the fact that the President’s tax cuts have saved the American economy..."

(Emphasis added by yours truly.)

Newsflash! "Ann Coulter's 'Godless' Hits NY Times #1 Spot"

Upon reading David Carr's malignant column bashing Ann Coulter in The New York Times the other day, I wondered in a posting how long it would take the Gray Lady to review her new bestseller and rank it on their Bestseller List.

Well, they have not---to my knowledge---reviewed the book yet. But, here is the news that Coulter's "Godless..." has made the Times' Bestseller List's ranking of #1.

An excerpt is below, the rest at the above link.
__________
"Ann Coulter's latest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" will debut at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nonfiction on June 25, 2006, reflecting an extraordinary first week of sales..."

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Republicans are asking: "When, exactly, was the climate ever in our control? Or extreme hurricanes?


Algore has gone way 'round the whacked-out enviro-nuts bend. He's planning to train large numbers of enviro-nut recruits to find more suckerfish to protect, polar bears to hug, and icebergs to measure.

One of those recruits is his former partner-in-crime who, in collusion with Algore, blew off immigration law-required background checks so 1 million immigrants could get instantly nationalized and registered to vote in a federal election and Democrat Party operatives could take them to the polls to vote.

Hmmmm.... Wouldn't that be election fraud...?

Whuddaya'think the chances are those thankful, rushed-through new citizens would be so appreciative of extra-ordinary special treatment they would vote for their benefactors to show their appreciation?

Kinda'like buying 1 million votes in one fell swoop. Can you say "1 million quid pro quos...?"

(Hat tip to Mike Lester for political toon.)