As reported here, the lunatic running the asylum called Iran has decided to reach out to the American people in an open letter. Although not as long or flowery as the 18 page ramble he sent to President Bush earlier this year, it is basically empty of anything substantive, merely calling on the US to disengage from Iraq, and stop "meddling" in the Middle East.
If you want to read the letter for yourself, you can find it here. But, if you would prefer not to read it, I'll give you a brief synopsis of what he wrote. In a nutshell, it pretty much boils down to Democrat talking points:
- Pull out of Iraq (the consequences to the Iraqi people of such an action are of no import, of course);
- Spend the money currently being spent in Iraq on the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and on the homeless (as if we aren't addressing those issues already);
- Stop meddling in the Middle East (we'll stop "meddling" in the Middle East when you stop trying to kill us through your surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah, and when you allow your people to have real representative government instead of the sham you and your predecessors have forced upon the Iranian people for nearly 40 years);
- Recognize a Palestinian State (never mind that we have been trying to get the Palestinians to embrace a state of their own, once they lay down their arms and recognize that Israel is not going away, no matter how much they want it to).
It's as if he has a direct line to Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (the latter of which would not surprise me one bit), and they dictated to him what to put in the letter.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
A personal note
Regular visitors to this blog will have noticed that I've been absent the past two weeks, and that is due to some things that were going on in real life (and no, I'm not going into details). Suffice it to say that I'll be posting here again on at least a semi-regular basis, as time allows. Thanks for your patience, folks.
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and if you live anywhere in the Pacific Northwest, that you are staying warm while we put up with this lovely little cold snap - which is very unusual for here! - and the snow and ice.
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and if you live anywhere in the Pacific Northwest, that you are staying warm while we put up with this lovely little cold snap - which is very unusual for here! - and the snow and ice.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
After the mid-terms - now what?
Democrats won a majority in both Houses this past Tuesday, and will take over majority leadership roles in January. To my Republican readers, I want to assure you that this is not the end of the world, although it was not the outcome we had hoped for. This is still a multi-party nation, and that was evidenced at the polls.
But now what? What will the Democrat Party do that will be better for our nation than what the Republican party was doing? Is there anything they can do that will actually be better? That remains to be seen, really, as I have yet to hear any Democrat put voice to anything remotely resembling a coherent plan, so I really have my doubts there. But, like I said, we’ll see in the coming months.
One thing I would like to see the Democrats not do is gloat. As Daniel Ortega, the recently re-elected President of Nicaragua said, "Don't let one criticism slip from your lips against those who didn't vote for us," he warned his supporters. "We have to be humble." That is wise advice indeed, and the Democrats would be wise to heed that. Why? It wasn’t the leadership of the Democrat Party that elected them, it was the voters of America that did, and that’s something they need to be mindful of.
On that note, another thing I would like to see the Democrats do, in cooperation with the Republicans, is get back to doing the people’s business. To do that, the partisan bickering on both sides needs to stop. It is counter-productive at best, and shows a measure of condescension towards the American people at worst. We put you there – Republicans and Democrats – to do a job, and that is to represent US, not to advance your own little petty agenda’s. You’ve been voted in to do a job. Fail to do that job, and you can find yourself voted right back out. If you can’t concentrate on doing the people’s business in an honest, ethical way, you have no business being in office. Something else you need to be mindful of.
So far, the Democrats have been “playing nice”, but how long will that last? The ball is now in your court Democrats – now what?
But now what? What will the Democrat Party do that will be better for our nation than what the Republican party was doing? Is there anything they can do that will actually be better? That remains to be seen, really, as I have yet to hear any Democrat put voice to anything remotely resembling a coherent plan, so I really have my doubts there. But, like I said, we’ll see in the coming months.
One thing I would like to see the Democrats not do is gloat. As Daniel Ortega, the recently re-elected President of Nicaragua said, "Don't let one criticism slip from your lips against those who didn't vote for us," he warned his supporters. "We have to be humble." That is wise advice indeed, and the Democrats would be wise to heed that. Why? It wasn’t the leadership of the Democrat Party that elected them, it was the voters of America that did, and that’s something they need to be mindful of.
On that note, another thing I would like to see the Democrats do, in cooperation with the Republicans, is get back to doing the people’s business. To do that, the partisan bickering on both sides needs to stop. It is counter-productive at best, and shows a measure of condescension towards the American people at worst. We put you there – Republicans and Democrats – to do a job, and that is to represent US, not to advance your own little petty agenda’s. You’ve been voted in to do a job. Fail to do that job, and you can find yourself voted right back out. If you can’t concentrate on doing the people’s business in an honest, ethical way, you have no business being in office. Something else you need to be mindful of.
So far, the Democrats have been “playing nice”, but how long will that last? The ball is now in your court Democrats – now what?
General approves court martial for Watada
As briefly reported here, First Lt. Ehren Watada, who challenged the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq and then refused to deploy to that country, will face a military trial, the Army said Thursday.
The Fort Lewis commander, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, recommended a general court-martial of Watada. No date has been set for the trial.
Watada was charged with missing troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials for comments he made about President Bush.
If convicted on all charges, Watada could serve six years of confinement and be dismissed from the service.
The 28-year-old officer from Honolulu has said he believes the war is illegal and was first charged after he refused to deploy to Iraq on June 22 with his Fort Lewis Stryker unit.
As I've posted on this individual before, what he believes, and what are facts are two different things, in that the war in Iraq is, in fact, legal, according to all of the UN Resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf War and later, regarding the activities of the regime of Saddam, who chose to violate each and every one of them in the mistaken belief that they wouldn't be enforced.
In making the statements that he did, Lt. Watada was also mistaken in the belief that the military regulations prohibiting such statements would not be enforced, and now he will face a general court martial to face the charges levied against him.
You took an oath, Watada, when you raised your right hand, an oath that you broke, disregarding the potential consequences of doing so, bringing the whirlwind upon yourself.
The Fort Lewis commander, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, recommended a general court-martial of Watada. No date has been set for the trial.
Watada was charged with missing troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials for comments he made about President Bush.
If convicted on all charges, Watada could serve six years of confinement and be dismissed from the service.
The 28-year-old officer from Honolulu has said he believes the war is illegal and was first charged after he refused to deploy to Iraq on June 22 with his Fort Lewis Stryker unit.
As I've posted on this individual before, what he believes, and what are facts are two different things, in that the war in Iraq is, in fact, legal, according to all of the UN Resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf War and later, regarding the activities of the regime of Saddam, who chose to violate each and every one of them in the mistaken belief that they wouldn't be enforced.
In making the statements that he did, Lt. Watada was also mistaken in the belief that the military regulations prohibiting such statements would not be enforced, and now he will face a general court martial to face the charges levied against him.
You took an oath, Watada, when you raised your right hand, an oath that you broke, disregarding the potential consequences of doing so, bringing the whirlwind upon yourself.
Race is on for the biggest prize -- the White House in 2008
The dust hasn't even settled yet on the mid-term elections, and people are already looking at 2008. This is an interesting article giving an early preview of who might be running for President in 2008.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
United States Marine Corps - 231 Years and counting
November 10th is the 231st birthday of the United States Marine Corps.
As a veteran of the US Navy, I have sometimes given in to my impulses to occasionally needle my "cousins" in the Marines, but I have always done so in a fun way, never in a demeaning or denigrating way.
I want to state - again - for the record, that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the US Marine Corps, and for the men and women who have served, and are now serving, our country as members of one of our nations most elite fighting forces, who are "First to fight for right and freedom ...".
Happy Birthday, Marines!
Semper Fi!
[Edit - As originally posted, I had the date incorrect. My apologies to my "cousins" in the USMC.]
As a veteran of the US Navy, I have sometimes given in to my impulses to occasionally needle my "cousins" in the Marines, but I have always done so in a fun way, never in a demeaning or denigrating way.
I want to state - again - for the record, that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the US Marine Corps, and for the men and women who have served, and are now serving, our country as members of one of our nations most elite fighting forces, who are "First to fight for right and freedom ...".
Happy Birthday, Marines!
Semper Fi!
[Edit - As originally posted, I had the date incorrect. My apologies to my "cousins" in the USMC.]
In Flanders Fields
On this Veteran's Day, Nov. 11th, 2006, I just want to bring you the poem "In Flanders Fields", written by Lt. Col. John McCrae, MD, Canadian Army, as presented on the web site of the Arlington National Cemetery, as a way to remember all those who have given their life in the service of their country.
In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Saddam sentenced to death by hanging
As reported here, Iraq's High Tribunal on Sunday found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang for the 1982 killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail. The visibly shaken former leader shouted "God is great!"
Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of the former Revolutionary Court, were sentenced to join Saddam on the gallows for the Dujail killings after an unsuccessful assassination attempt during a Saddam visit to the city 35 miles north of Baghdad.
So, what happens now? The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.
Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi told reporters that the Anfal trial now in progress for Saddam and others alleged role in gassing and killing Kurds would continue while the appeals process is underway. But if the appellate judges uphold the death sentence, the Anfal proceedings and other cases would be halted and Saddam hanged.
Al-Moussawi said Saddam would be hanged if the sentence were upheld, despite his demand that he be shot by a firing squad.
A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted.
I would e very surprised if this verdict was overturned in the appeals process, and I expect that Saddam will hang. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not, I think you'll agree that Saddam is a monster in human form, and deserves whatever justice the Iraqi courts mete out.
Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of the former Revolutionary Court, were sentenced to join Saddam on the gallows for the Dujail killings after an unsuccessful assassination attempt during a Saddam visit to the city 35 miles north of Baghdad.
So, what happens now? The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.
Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi told reporters that the Anfal trial now in progress for Saddam and others alleged role in gassing and killing Kurds would continue while the appeals process is underway. But if the appellate judges uphold the death sentence, the Anfal proceedings and other cases would be halted and Saddam hanged.
Al-Moussawi said Saddam would be hanged if the sentence were upheld, despite his demand that he be shot by a firing squad.
A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted.
I would e very surprised if this verdict was overturned in the appeals process, and I expect that Saddam will hang. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not, I think you'll agree that Saddam is a monster in human form, and deserves whatever justice the Iraqi courts mete out.
Get out and vote!
This coming Tuesday, Nov. 7th, is an important day. This is the day that you get to participate in the democratic process by voting, so get out there and do it. If you vote absentee, and haven't sent in your vote, do it.
Vote your conscience, even if that means "crossing party lines". I don't care if you call yourself a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or "Other/Unaffiliated/Undecided", if a candidate on your ballot is speaking to those issues that are important to you, vote for him or her, even if they are in a different political party than you are.
Republicans! Do you want the House and Senate to remain in Republican hands? Then get out and cast your ballot. If you stay home, and the Republicans lose the majority in either House (or both), do not cry and bellyache about it! You won't have anything to say if you stay home.
Democrats! Tired of the policies of the current majority party? Want to see some changes? Then get out and vote! If you stay home, and the Republicans retain the majority in either House (or both), do not cry and bellyache about it! You won't have anything to say if you stay home.
Libertarians! Want your party to become a viable third choice to the Republican or Democrat parties? Then get out and vote! Show the American people that you're serious about having your voice heard, so your party isn't looked upon with condescending tolerance by the "big boys", as it is now.
The rest of you that fall in the category of "Other/Unaffiliated/Undecided"! Make up your mind, and get out and vote! Voting Green? Fine, as long as you get out and actually vote! Unaffiliated? Get affiliated with someone, and vote! Undecided? Quit straddling the fence, make a decision you can live with, and vote!
Anyone who sits at home this coming Tuesday (or fails to send in their absentee ballot on time), and defaults on their civic duty of participating in the American democratic process, automatically gives up their right to cry and bellyache about the results!
No one at the National level appeal to you? Then don't vote for any of them. But! There are still local issues that will have a direct impact on you, that you should vote for (or against, as the case may be). Don't let National candidates that you don't care for be the excuse for you not making the effort to get out and cast your ballot.
Oh, and one last thing. Don't let bad weather be your excuse to not get out and vote, whether it is at the polling place, or via the US Post Office. Bad weather is what they make coats and unbrella's for!
Get out and vote, people! You can be sure I am!
Vote your conscience, even if that means "crossing party lines". I don't care if you call yourself a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or "Other/Unaffiliated/Undecided", if a candidate on your ballot is speaking to those issues that are important to you, vote for him or her, even if they are in a different political party than you are.
Republicans! Do you want the House and Senate to remain in Republican hands? Then get out and cast your ballot. If you stay home, and the Republicans lose the majority in either House (or both), do not cry and bellyache about it! You won't have anything to say if you stay home.
Democrats! Tired of the policies of the current majority party? Want to see some changes? Then get out and vote! If you stay home, and the Republicans retain the majority in either House (or both), do not cry and bellyache about it! You won't have anything to say if you stay home.
Libertarians! Want your party to become a viable third choice to the Republican or Democrat parties? Then get out and vote! Show the American people that you're serious about having your voice heard, so your party isn't looked upon with condescending tolerance by the "big boys", as it is now.
The rest of you that fall in the category of "Other/Unaffiliated/Undecided"! Make up your mind, and get out and vote! Voting Green? Fine, as long as you get out and actually vote! Unaffiliated? Get affiliated with someone, and vote! Undecided? Quit straddling the fence, make a decision you can live with, and vote!
Anyone who sits at home this coming Tuesday (or fails to send in their absentee ballot on time), and defaults on their civic duty of participating in the American democratic process, automatically gives up their right to cry and bellyache about the results!
No one at the National level appeal to you? Then don't vote for any of them. But! There are still local issues that will have a direct impact on you, that you should vote for (or against, as the case may be). Don't let National candidates that you don't care for be the excuse for you not making the effort to get out and cast your ballot.
Oh, and one last thing. Don't let bad weather be your excuse to not get out and vote, whether it is at the polling place, or via the US Post Office. Bad weather is what they make coats and unbrella's for!
Get out and vote, people! You can be sure I am!
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Cuba's Dissident Movement Grows Stronger as Castro Weakens
Information you won't see in the MSM regarding the democracy movements efforts in Cuba, via Stefania Lapenna of Town Hall.
If you want to know what real freedom fighters are all about, read the article.
If you want to know what real freedom fighters are all about, read the article.
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
A good friend of mine from an on-line community posted the following list, and I thought I'd share it with all of you.
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA oops, can't do that either.
H/T Conservative67
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA oops, can't do that either.
H/T Conservative67
Blabbermouths in play
Still undecided about who you're going to vote for in November? Want some clear, honest advice? Then, read this piece by Michelle Malkin.
Bush rallies base to 'just say no'
As reported here, President Bush yesterday yelled himself hoarse in his first public political rally of the 2006 election campaign, whipping thousands of supporters into chants of "USA!" as he criticized Democrats for being weak on national security and anxious to increase taxes.
Swooping into a Republican stronghold that on Election Day will be an early harbinger of whether Republicans hold control of Congress, Mr. Bush led the crowd in a chant that gave new meaning to an old Reagan-era slogan.
"The Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no," the president said. "When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat answer?" Mr. Bush asked.
"Just say no!" the crowd shouted.
"So when the Democrats ask for your vote on Nov. 7, what are you going to say?"
"Just say no!" the audience replied.
With just nine days to go before the midterm elections, the White House has settled on a simple strategy: Turn out the base.
This is good, and I support the President's efforts. The base of the Republican Party does need to turn out, if we want to retain a majority in Congress.
Swooping into a Republican stronghold that on Election Day will be an early harbinger of whether Republicans hold control of Congress, Mr. Bush led the crowd in a chant that gave new meaning to an old Reagan-era slogan.
"The Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no," the president said. "When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat answer?" Mr. Bush asked.
"Just say no!" the crowd shouted.
"So when the Democrats ask for your vote on Nov. 7, what are you going to say?"
"Just say no!" the audience replied.
With just nine days to go before the midterm elections, the White House has settled on a simple strategy: Turn out the base.
This is good, and I support the President's efforts. The base of the Republican Party does need to turn out, if we want to retain a majority in Congress.
Obama has one eye on White House
As reported here, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday that he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.
In recent weeks, Obama's political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who has done extensive focus-group research on all the Democrats and Republicans considering a White House race in 2008, said of Obama: "I saw how he lit up a crowd in Iowa with barely a B-plus speech -- and that's the worst I've seen him all year. Imagine how politically potent he is when he's on his game. He's got all the best qualities of John and Bobby Kennedy combined, and none of the worst."
Sen. Obama, who is relatively young at 45, is a rising star of the Democrat Party, and if he does decide to run, it could be problematic for Hillary. However, if he does decide to run, I don't think he'll get the nomination over Hillary, but you could see him paired with Hillary as the VP candidate, instead of at the head of the ticket.
I'll be keeping an eye on this.
In recent weeks, Obama's political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who has done extensive focus-group research on all the Democrats and Republicans considering a White House race in 2008, said of Obama: "I saw how he lit up a crowd in Iowa with barely a B-plus speech -- and that's the worst I've seen him all year. Imagine how politically potent he is when he's on his game. He's got all the best qualities of John and Bobby Kennedy combined, and none of the worst."
Sen. Obama, who is relatively young at 45, is a rising star of the Democrat Party, and if he does decide to run, it could be problematic for Hillary. However, if he does decide to run, I don't think he'll get the nomination over Hillary, but you could see him paired with Hillary as the VP candidate, instead of at the head of the ticket.
I'll be keeping an eye on this.
Anti-abortion posters infuriate some students
As reported here, [a] small group of anti-abortion activists stood in the cold at the avowedly liberal University of Washington on Wednesday, bearing signs of dismembered, bloody fetuses. But despite the university's commitment to free speech, Show The Truth Washington had a hard time making its point.
Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures.
The images were so gory and disturbing that campus officials had alerted students a week in advance. Because the university is a public institution, groups do not need formal permission to gather on its grounds, said Gus Kravas, who chairs the school's Use of Facilities Committee.
But students were incensed, nonetheless.
"I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here."
So, Mr. Mandarino, you speak for everyone on campus? I think not. As for your statement that there isn't a place for them on campus, could you kindly show me in the US Constitution where it says that free speech is allowed everywhere except where you don't want to see or hear a view that is different from your own? I'm waiting ... oh, wait! You can't show me where that particular clause in the Constitution is, because there isn't one!
Let me remind you of something there, Sunshine. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
I don't happen to agree with your point of view regarding abortion (and possibly a whole range of other things as well). I also don't agree with the point of view espoused by that nutjob Fred Phelps, either. But you know what? Just because I don't happen to agree with either of the cited points of view does NOT give me the right to tell you, or Phelps, that you can't express those points of view.
Just as you, and your liberal PC adhering cohorts have no right to tell anyone, whether it's the "Show The Truth Washington" group, or me, what we can or cannot say, just because you disagree with what they, or I, are saying.
Let me say this one more time. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
Deal with it!
Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures.
The images were so gory and disturbing that campus officials had alerted students a week in advance. Because the university is a public institution, groups do not need formal permission to gather on its grounds, said Gus Kravas, who chairs the school's Use of Facilities Committee.
But students were incensed, nonetheless.
"I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here."
So, Mr. Mandarino, you speak for everyone on campus? I think not. As for your statement that there isn't a place for them on campus, could you kindly show me in the US Constitution where it says that free speech is allowed everywhere except where you don't want to see or hear a view that is different from your own? I'm waiting ... oh, wait! You can't show me where that particular clause in the Constitution is, because there isn't one!
Let me remind you of something there, Sunshine. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
I don't happen to agree with your point of view regarding abortion (and possibly a whole range of other things as well). I also don't agree with the point of view espoused by that nutjob Fred Phelps, either. But you know what? Just because I don't happen to agree with either of the cited points of view does NOT give me the right to tell you, or Phelps, that you can't express those points of view.
Just as you, and your liberal PC adhering cohorts have no right to tell anyone, whether it's the "Show The Truth Washington" group, or me, what we can or cannot say, just because you disagree with what they, or I, are saying.
Let me say this one more time. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
Deal with it!
State high court stands by gay marriage ban; Justices' decision is the final word in the case
As reported here, [t]he [Washington] state Supreme Court will stand by its endorsement of Washington's gay marriage ban, justices said Wednesday.
Gay and lesbian couples had asked the justices to reconsider their 5-4 ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1998 law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The court's denial, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, is the final word in the case. Further appeal is not possible because no federal legal issues were raised.
The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings. Few observers expected it to revisit a ruling that took nearly 18 months to craft.
"Having taken as long as they took to make up their minds, I thought it was unlikely that they would change them," said Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who defended the gay-marriage ban in court.
Gay marriage supporters said the ruling was particularly disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to benefits heterosexual couples have.
Over 40 states have some sort of variation of our law on their books, with 20 states having amended their state constitutions, specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with the rational being to promote stable families. I'm glad that we can count Washington State among that group.
Listen. If you are a gay or lesbian that wants to see changes made to the laws, your best recourse for doing so is by going through your state legislature, and stop trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench, ok? Depending on where you live, you can either simply lobby your legislative representatives to ask them to either change current laws, or write new laws, or try to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, and let the voters decide. That's how the process works.
Gay and lesbian couples had asked the justices to reconsider their 5-4 ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1998 law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The court's denial, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, is the final word in the case. Further appeal is not possible because no federal legal issues were raised.
The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings. Few observers expected it to revisit a ruling that took nearly 18 months to craft.
"Having taken as long as they took to make up their minds, I thought it was unlikely that they would change them," said Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who defended the gay-marriage ban in court.
Gay marriage supporters said the ruling was particularly disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to benefits heterosexual couples have.
Over 40 states have some sort of variation of our law on their books, with 20 states having amended their state constitutions, specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with the rational being to promote stable families. I'm glad that we can count Washington State among that group.
Listen. If you are a gay or lesbian that wants to see changes made to the laws, your best recourse for doing so is by going through your state legislature, and stop trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench, ok? Depending on where you live, you can either simply lobby your legislative representatives to ask them to either change current laws, or write new laws, or try to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, and let the voters decide. That's how the process works.
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
What bias? Oh, that bias!
Just as the BBC is full of liberals, so too is the majority of US newspapers and network news, which they steadfastly deny. Read the article. It's an eye opener.
H/T: Reality Hammer
Just as the BBC is full of liberals, so too is the majority of US newspapers and network news, which they steadfastly deny. Read the article. It's an eye opener.
H/T: Reality Hammer
Sunday, October 22, 2006
China sides with U.S. against North Korea
As reported here, [a]n exasperated China took a newly tough approach to communist ally North Korea on Friday, siding with the United States in saying the North must back away from nuclear confrontation, and moving to cut Pyongyang's vital supply of hard currency.
Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government orders, bank employees said Friday. And at an appearance with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, China's foreign minister nudged the North to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and assured Washington that China would carry out United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang.
China losing patience with N. Korea and finally siding with the US is a start; cutting off money transfers with N. Korea will definitely hurt them, and may impel Kim to agree to return to the six nation talks, but what I think may really hurt is the cutting off of luxury goods, which go exclusively to the elites in the North, who won't like that at all, and I'm sure they will put pressure on Kim that will actually accomplish something.
Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government orders, bank employees said Friday. And at an appearance with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, China's foreign minister nudged the North to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and assured Washington that China would carry out United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang.
China losing patience with N. Korea and finally siding with the US is a start; cutting off money transfers with N. Korea will definitely hurt them, and may impel Kim to agree to return to the six nation talks, but what I think may really hurt is the cutting off of luxury goods, which go exclusively to the elites in the North, who won't like that at all, and I'm sure they will put pressure on Kim that will actually accomplish something.
Bush signs law on terror suspects
As reported here, [s]ome of the most notorious names in the war on terror are headed toward prosecution after President Bush signed a law Tuesday authorizing military trials of terrorism suspects.
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
This is a good thing in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists, yet there are some - most notably the ACLU, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) - who would have us give more rights to those who perpetrate acts of terror, over the victims of their acts of terror.
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
What about the civil rights of those who died in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Shanksville, PA? What about the civil rights of those who died on the USS Cole? What about the civil rights of those who died in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa? What about the civil rights of those who died in the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia? Don't their civil rights count? Oh, wait - they're dead, so they don't have any civil rights any more. Silly me.
As for this being "a stain on our nation's history.", this law goes hand in hand with the Patriot Act in giving us tools to bring those who commit acts of terror to justice, whether that justice is through military tribunes (which FDR also used during WWII, I'd like to point out), or the death of other terrorists from the information obtained from those terrorists already held. This law is far from being a stain. Rather, it is a welcome bright spot in this war we must win at all costs!
I'd like to ask the ACLU, and most Democrats one question, and that is - what part of they want to kill us all don't you understand?
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
This is a good thing in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists, yet there are some - most notably the ACLU, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) - who would have us give more rights to those who perpetrate acts of terror, over the victims of their acts of terror.
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
What about the civil rights of those who died in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Shanksville, PA? What about the civil rights of those who died on the USS Cole? What about the civil rights of those who died in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa? What about the civil rights of those who died in the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia? Don't their civil rights count? Oh, wait - they're dead, so they don't have any civil rights any more. Silly me.
As for this being "a stain on our nation's history.", this law goes hand in hand with the Patriot Act in giving us tools to bring those who commit acts of terror to justice, whether that justice is through military tribunes (which FDR also used during WWII, I'd like to point out), or the death of other terrorists from the information obtained from those terrorists already held. This law is far from being a stain. Rather, it is a welcome bright spot in this war we must win at all costs!
I'd like to ask the ACLU, and most Democrats one question, and that is - what part of they want to kill us all don't you understand?
Democrat Staffer Linked to National Security Leaks
As briefly reported here, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Peter Hoekstra, announced last week that the committee has suspended a Democrat staffer for leaking classified information documents. The leaks involved an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report that was given to the New York Times.
On Sunday Fox News’ Weekend Live, Rep. Hoekstra told Bret Baier that there is “sufficient evidence to suspend the person’s access to classified documents. We can’t politicize this. We’re still a nation at risk.”
The staffer, Larry Hanauer, is employed by Rep Jane Harman (D-CA). Harman is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
It really doesn't matter to me what political party affiliation Mr. Hanauer claims. What does matter to me is that he is alleged to have leaked classified information, specifically cherry picked portions of the NIE, to a newspaper, which in this case just happens to be the New York Times.
What Mr. Hanauer allegedly did is a crime. The fact that he now no longer has access to classified information is good. However, an investigation - if there isn't one already - needs to be made into this incident, and all of the relevant facts must be made known to the American public. If the allegations prove to be true, then Mr. Hanauer needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sent to prison. I would say the same thing if it was a Republican staffer.
The New York Post is equally outraged at this as I am, and gives a few more details here.
On Sunday Fox News’ Weekend Live, Rep. Hoekstra told Bret Baier that there is “sufficient evidence to suspend the person’s access to classified documents. We can’t politicize this. We’re still a nation at risk.”
The staffer, Larry Hanauer, is employed by Rep Jane Harman (D-CA). Harman is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
It really doesn't matter to me what political party affiliation Mr. Hanauer claims. What does matter to me is that he is alleged to have leaked classified information, specifically cherry picked portions of the NIE, to a newspaper, which in this case just happens to be the New York Times.
What Mr. Hanauer allegedly did is a crime. The fact that he now no longer has access to classified information is good. However, an investigation - if there isn't one already - needs to be made into this incident, and all of the relevant facts must be made known to the American public. If the allegations prove to be true, then Mr. Hanauer needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sent to prison. I would say the same thing if it was a Republican staffer.
The New York Post is equally outraged at this as I am, and gives a few more details here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)