As reported here, [t]o Jeremy Burris the word "liberty" was more than the name of his hometown. It was something worth fighting for.
An all-American kid from a little all-American town, the 22-year-old Marine lance corporal died heroically in Iraq. More than a thousand people turned out Wednesday as a white hearse carried his body to burial in the historic 1800s Cooke Memorial Cemetery.
Within hours, the grave was desecrated. About 30 sprays of flowers were ripped apart, petals strewn over the loose earth. Flags decorating the gravesite were also torn down and sentimental notes and posters shredded.
Fortunately, Allison Funeral Service employees already restored it.
I'm angered by this. I mean, Jeremy Burris fought for this country, died for this country, defending the rights we have as citizens of this nation (including the right to protest something you don't like), and this is how he is repaid for his sacrifice? This is total disrespect.
To the persons responsible for this outrage. If you don't like the military, don't like the fact that our troops are over in Iraq fighting those who would like nothing better than to kill you, that's fine. That's your right. A right that Jeremy stood up to protect., whether you like that or not. The fact that you probably don't like the military or the war in Iraq, DOES NOT give you the right to do what you did.
I hope you get stupid and brag about what you did, and that someone who you brag to rats you out. You deserve to spend a long time in jail.
To the family of LCpl Burris - my heart goes out to you both for the loss of your son, and for what happened to his grave. As a veteran of the US Navy, I also want to thank you for the sacrifice that Jeremy made.
Semper Fi!
H/T dogmaticus
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Never Forget
Today, September 11, 2007 marks the sixth anniversary of the attack, not only on our nation, but on our very way of life by “people” bound and determined to enslave not only us, but the entire world.
These “people” want to return us to the time where they controlled vast swaths of the world, imposing their will, and their so-called “Religion of Peace”, through the sword. This is something that we cannot, must not, allow to happen. If a modern, free society, is to survive, we must fight these “people” at every turn, and never surrender. For if we surrender, we shall die.
Yet, there are those in our society who think that these “people” can be appeased, and that, if appeased, they will stop the violence that they inflict upon the world. This is a fallacy, born of a “head in the sand” wishful thinking.
Neville Chamberlain found that out in 1939, when he attempted to appease one of the vilest monsters that has ever walked this earth, Adolph Hitler, when he proclaimed upon his return to London, “Peace in our time!”. Because of Chamberlain’s ill-fated attempt at appeasing Hitler, countless millions were soon subjugated under the jack boots of the Nazi regime, resulting in the deaths of countless millions more, as the world convulsed in total war.
Just as Adolph Hitler wanted the power to dominate the world, imposing his will, so these “people” want to dominate the world, so they may impose their will upon everyone. Whether you realize it or not, the truth of the matter is that we are once again embroiled in a world war, one that we must win, whatever the cost, if our society, our very way of life is to survive.
On this sixth anniversary, take a moment to reflect on what is at stake, for much is at stake. Do not take the freedoms that we enjoy for granted, for if we lose this war, we will lose those freedoms, which is the ultimate goal of those “people”.
I would rather stand and fight as a free man, and risk the possibility of death, rather than surrender and guarantee my death as a slave.
Never forget.
These “people” want to return us to the time where they controlled vast swaths of the world, imposing their will, and their so-called “Religion of Peace”, through the sword. This is something that we cannot, must not, allow to happen. If a modern, free society, is to survive, we must fight these “people” at every turn, and never surrender. For if we surrender, we shall die.
Yet, there are those in our society who think that these “people” can be appeased, and that, if appeased, they will stop the violence that they inflict upon the world. This is a fallacy, born of a “head in the sand” wishful thinking.
Neville Chamberlain found that out in 1939, when he attempted to appease one of the vilest monsters that has ever walked this earth, Adolph Hitler, when he proclaimed upon his return to London, “Peace in our time!”. Because of Chamberlain’s ill-fated attempt at appeasing Hitler, countless millions were soon subjugated under the jack boots of the Nazi regime, resulting in the deaths of countless millions more, as the world convulsed in total war.
Just as Adolph Hitler wanted the power to dominate the world, imposing his will, so these “people” want to dominate the world, so they may impose their will upon everyone. Whether you realize it or not, the truth of the matter is that we are once again embroiled in a world war, one that we must win, whatever the cost, if our society, our very way of life is to survive.
On this sixth anniversary, take a moment to reflect on what is at stake, for much is at stake. Do not take the freedoms that we enjoy for granted, for if we lose this war, we will lose those freedoms, which is the ultimate goal of those “people”.
I would rather stand and fight as a free man, and risk the possibility of death, rather than surrender and guarantee my death as a slave.
Never forget.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Thompson to announce candidacy on Thursday
As reported here, Republican Fred Thompson will officially launch his presidential bid Sept. 6 in a Webcast on his campaign site [www.imwithfred.com], followed by a five-day tour of early primary states.
"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time: the global threat of terrorism, taxes and spending that will bankrupt future generations, and a government that can't seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor said in a news release Thursday that laid out themes of his campaign.
This is welcome news! Why? Because I believe that Fred Thompson gives us the best chance of retaining the White House for another four years. There are too many issues with the remaining candidates on the Republican side to bring cohesion back to the Republican Party, to enable us to retain the White House.
So, I'm going on the record here to publicly endorse Fred D. Thompson for the Republican nomination, and for President of the United States in the 2008 election - regardless of what the FEC may say or do as a result of my endorsement, through the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which in my opinion, regarding the part about weblogs, is unconstitutional. Here is the text of the First Amendment :
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine]
Note that it does not say, "except political speech". The part that says "... abridging the freedom of speech ..." is pretty much all encompassing, and that is what gives me (and everyone else) the right to endorse whomever I want, for whatever political office, I choose to, Senators McCain and Feingold notwithstanding, and I will fight for my rights all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time: the global threat of terrorism, taxes and spending that will bankrupt future generations, and a government that can't seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor said in a news release Thursday that laid out themes of his campaign.
This is welcome news! Why? Because I believe that Fred Thompson gives us the best chance of retaining the White House for another four years. There are too many issues with the remaining candidates on the Republican side to bring cohesion back to the Republican Party, to enable us to retain the White House.
So, I'm going on the record here to publicly endorse Fred D. Thompson for the Republican nomination, and for President of the United States in the 2008 election - regardless of what the FEC may say or do as a result of my endorsement, through the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which in my opinion, regarding the part about weblogs, is unconstitutional. Here is the text of the First Amendment :
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine]
Note that it does not say, "except political speech". The part that says "... abridging the freedom of speech ..." is pretty much all encompassing, and that is what gives me (and everyone else) the right to endorse whomever I want, for whatever political office, I choose to, Senators McCain and Feingold notwithstanding, and I will fight for my rights all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Bridge collapses in Minneapolis
My heart goes out to all those involved in the bridge collapse tragedy in Minneapolis. I'm really stunned by this ... I'm almost at a loss for words.
This tragedy hits kind of close to home in a couple of ways. First of all, I've driven across that bridge, although it has been 27 years now that I did so, and when I heard the news, I got that cold, hard knot feeling in my stomach as the memory of crossing that bridge those many long years ago came rushing back to me.
The other way is that we have a couple of bridges here in Seattle that are in danger of catastrophic failure if the conditions are right, which I have posted about in the past - the Evergreen Point floating bridge, which is a major connection between the communities on the east side of Lake Washington and Seattle, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is a major north - south arterial located on the Seattle waterfront.
Both bridges carry vast numbers of cars on a daily basis, even though it is a known fact that either (or both) could collapse in another major earthquake or huge wind storm, yet our local government officials are dithering about what to do about both, and how to pay for it, wasting both time and money on "study" after "study", and accomplishing virtually nothing in the process.
In light of this tragedy that happened in Minneapolis, I think it is time for our local politicians, from the governor and state legislature down to the various city councils and mayors to come together and find common ground to a solution for these two bridges in our area before we have a similar tragedy befall us.
Again, my heart goes out to all those who have been affected by this tragedy.
This tragedy hits kind of close to home in a couple of ways. First of all, I've driven across that bridge, although it has been 27 years now that I did so, and when I heard the news, I got that cold, hard knot feeling in my stomach as the memory of crossing that bridge those many long years ago came rushing back to me.
The other way is that we have a couple of bridges here in Seattle that are in danger of catastrophic failure if the conditions are right, which I have posted about in the past - the Evergreen Point floating bridge, which is a major connection between the communities on the east side of Lake Washington and Seattle, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is a major north - south arterial located on the Seattle waterfront.
Both bridges carry vast numbers of cars on a daily basis, even though it is a known fact that either (or both) could collapse in another major earthquake or huge wind storm, yet our local government officials are dithering about what to do about both, and how to pay for it, wasting both time and money on "study" after "study", and accomplishing virtually nothing in the process.
In light of this tragedy that happened in Minneapolis, I think it is time for our local politicians, from the governor and state legislature down to the various city councils and mayors to come together and find common ground to a solution for these two bridges in our area before we have a similar tragedy befall us.
Again, my heart goes out to all those who have been affected by this tragedy.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Tunneling Near Iranian Nuclear Site Stirs Worry
As reported here, [t]he sudden flurry of digging seen in recent satellite photos of a mountainside in central Iran might have passed for ordinary road tunneling. But the site is the back yard of Iran's most ambitious and controversial nuclear facility, leading U.S. officials and independent experts to reach another conclusion: It appears to be the start of a major tunnel complex inside the mountain.
The question is, why? Worries have been stoked by the presence nearby of fortified buildings where uranium is being processed. Those structures in turn are now being connected by roads to Iran's nuclear site at Natanz, where the country recently started production of enriched uranium in defiance of international protests.
The answer to that question is fairly simple and straightforward, and I've posted about this many times before - Iran's leaders want Iran to become a nuclear power, possessing nuclear weapons, so they can pursue their dream of recreating the Caliphate with them at it's head, on a world-wide basis. They want to Islamicise the entire world - whether anyone else wants them to or not - and to do this they feel that they need to have nuclear weapons, regardless of how many times they deny that they desire a source of nuclear energy, "for peaceful purposes", and not nuclear weapons.
If they do manage to produce nuclear weapons (through their own means and the ineptitude of the rest of the world), they will first bully their neighbors in the region to bow to their will under threat of nuclear holocaust, and then once they have consolidated their hold over the Middle East, they will then turn their eyes north to Europe and Russia, and east to China. Once they have Europe, Russia, and China under their influence, they will then look to the US, using resources they will be able to obtain from Europe, Russia and China (i.e. ICBM's), to try to make us bend to their will as well.
Will the world sit back and simply allow Iran's leaders see their plans come to fruition? I don't see much happening that will stop Iran's leaders at the present time. Hopefully, those in power now and those who will be in power in the near future will wake up, before it's too late.
H/T specialrpt reporting in quicknews
The question is, why? Worries have been stoked by the presence nearby of fortified buildings where uranium is being processed. Those structures in turn are now being connected by roads to Iran's nuclear site at Natanz, where the country recently started production of enriched uranium in defiance of international protests.
The answer to that question is fairly simple and straightforward, and I've posted about this many times before - Iran's leaders want Iran to become a nuclear power, possessing nuclear weapons, so they can pursue their dream of recreating the Caliphate with them at it's head, on a world-wide basis. They want to Islamicise the entire world - whether anyone else wants them to or not - and to do this they feel that they need to have nuclear weapons, regardless of how many times they deny that they desire a source of nuclear energy, "for peaceful purposes", and not nuclear weapons.
If they do manage to produce nuclear weapons (through their own means and the ineptitude of the rest of the world), they will first bully their neighbors in the region to bow to their will under threat of nuclear holocaust, and then once they have consolidated their hold over the Middle East, they will then turn their eyes north to Europe and Russia, and east to China. Once they have Europe, Russia, and China under their influence, they will then look to the US, using resources they will be able to obtain from Europe, Russia and China (i.e. ICBM's), to try to make us bend to their will as well.
Will the world sit back and simply allow Iran's leaders see their plans come to fruition? I don't see much happening that will stop Iran's leaders at the present time. Hopefully, those in power now and those who will be in power in the near future will wake up, before it's too late.
H/T specialrpt reporting in quicknews
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Happy Independence Day
On this day in 1776 brave men on these shores issued a declaration of independence from the most powerful nation on earth at the time, England, over abuses perpetrated by George III, that they felt had no other means of remedy.
They did so knowing that they were putting their liberty, and their very lives, at great risk, while at the same time not knowing if their venture would bear the fruits of success, since the Colonies had no friends, and few resources to match up against the formidable power and wealth of England.
But one thing they did know. They had to throw off the chains of servitude, in order to live the life of free men, governing themselves in a just and equitable manner.
Military defeat after military defeat ensued, but the resolve of those involved in the fight for freedom never wavered in the main, and eventually things began to turn around for the beleaguered colonists, until at long last, England was convinced that there was no possibility that they were going to be able to hold on to their former colonies, and the United States of America became a reality.
Without the perseverance and resolve of the Founding Fathers, without their belief in the rightness of their cause, where would we be today? The answer to that is unknowable, although this writer suspects that we would not be in the position of prominence that we enjoy today. I also suspect that we would enjoy the freedoms that we have today, in the form that we have them, and at least to me, that is unthinkable.
As we celebrate our nations birthday today, I ask that you take a moment to think on what it took to create this nation 231 years ago today, and be thankful.
Be safe, folks, and enjoy today! ;)
They did so knowing that they were putting their liberty, and their very lives, at great risk, while at the same time not knowing if their venture would bear the fruits of success, since the Colonies had no friends, and few resources to match up against the formidable power and wealth of England.
But one thing they did know. They had to throw off the chains of servitude, in order to live the life of free men, governing themselves in a just and equitable manner.
Military defeat after military defeat ensued, but the resolve of those involved in the fight for freedom never wavered in the main, and eventually things began to turn around for the beleaguered colonists, until at long last, England was convinced that there was no possibility that they were going to be able to hold on to their former colonies, and the United States of America became a reality.
Without the perseverance and resolve of the Founding Fathers, without their belief in the rightness of their cause, where would we be today? The answer to that is unknowable, although this writer suspects that we would not be in the position of prominence that we enjoy today. I also suspect that we would enjoy the freedoms that we have today, in the form that we have them, and at least to me, that is unthinkable.
As we celebrate our nations birthday today, I ask that you take a moment to think on what it took to create this nation 231 years ago today, and be thankful.
Be safe, folks, and enjoy today! ;)
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says
As reported here, Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!
America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.
I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!
America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.
I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Vandals burn flags at two cemeteries
This past weekend, our country observed Memorial Day, honoring those who had given the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation and the freedoms we hold so dear. Well, most of us did, anyway. There were apparently some who thought that observing Memorial Day properly, by honoring America's fallen veterans by placing American flags on their grave stones and maybe taking a moment to silently reflect on their sacrifice was, well, not the thing to do. They decided that, instead, the thing to do was to steal the flags and burn them, and replace them with hand drawn Nazi swastika's.
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
Today is the day where we observe Memorial Day, a day set aside to honor those who have fallen in the service of our nation, protecting and advancing those ideals of liberty and freedom we hold so dear. We need to keep in mind that of those who have served, all gave some, and some gave all, which is the ultimate purpose for this day.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Leaked phone-call case could cost McDermott $1 million
As reported here, Rep. Jim McDermott has had the luxury of winning big and cheaply in recent elections, facing only token opposition.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
I don't know ...
... whether to be amused by this, or annoyed.
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
A personal note
It's been a couple of weeks since I last posted, and so to the three or four regular readers that stop by now and then, I apologize for the lack of fresh stuff lately.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
A new link
I've added a new link to our blogroll, done by a friend of mine, called The Marching Camp. Go on over and check it out. You'll be glad you did.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
Today is Armed Forces Day
Today is Armed Forces Day, a day established to honor those who serve our nation in both peace and war. As a veteran of the US Navy, I want to say thank you so very much for your service to our nation. Freedom isn't free, and the sacrifices that you, and your families, make on our behalf are deeply appreciated by this writer.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
Carter Condemns Blair's Support for Bush
As reported here, the man who led this nation into double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, is a friend to terrorists and political thugs, let Americans languish in Iranian hands for 444 days, and still thinks he's politically relevant states that, Britain's support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy" for the world, former President Jimmy Carter said Saturday as he criticized Tony Blair's unwavering support for President Bush.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?
Congress is set to vote on the latest attempt to grant amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants here in the US at comprehensive immigration reform.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Radio hosts exempt from campaign finance laws
As reported here, [a] unanimous state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that two radio talk-show hosts who used airtime to support a gas-tax rollback initiative they launched were not required to report their commentary as an in-kind political contribution.
The court also reinstated a countersuit filed by the No New Gas Tax campaign against the local governments that initially sued: San Juan County and the cities of Auburn, Kent and Seattle.
"This is a victory for free speech and a free press in Washington state," said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, who argued the case before the high court.
The ruling overturns a 2005 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham that talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at Seattle radio station KVI-AM/570 were key organizers and promoters of Initiative 912. The ballot measure was aimed at heading off a four-step, 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gasoline tax.
The judge said the airtime amounted to an in-kind contribution to the campaign and required that the value be reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
State law says editorials, commentaries and other types of news reports are not considered contributions.
Wilbur, Carlson and the station argued their role with the initiative was within the normal bounds of radio fare, and the high court agreed.
The Washington State Supreme Court did the right thing by overturning the over reaching, blatant attempt to stifle political free speech by Wickham and the municipalities. Not only did they overturn it, they did it unanimously. This is a very welcome development in this case, which I previously posted about here and here.
The court also reinstated a countersuit filed by the No New Gas Tax campaign against the local governments that initially sued: San Juan County and the cities of Auburn, Kent and Seattle.
"This is a victory for free speech and a free press in Washington state," said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, who argued the case before the high court.
The ruling overturns a 2005 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham that talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at Seattle radio station KVI-AM/570 were key organizers and promoters of Initiative 912. The ballot measure was aimed at heading off a four-step, 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gasoline tax.
The judge said the airtime amounted to an in-kind contribution to the campaign and required that the value be reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
State law says editorials, commentaries and other types of news reports are not considered contributions.
Wilbur, Carlson and the station argued their role with the initiative was within the normal bounds of radio fare, and the high court agreed.
The Washington State Supreme Court did the right thing by overturning the over reaching, blatant attempt to stifle political free speech by Wickham and the municipalities. Not only did they overturn it, they did it unanimously. This is a very welcome development in this case, which I previously posted about here and here.
Democrats turn to GOP on new Iraq bill
As reported here, Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto - unlike the one Congress will send him [this] week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.
I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".
I mean, it really is that simple.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.
I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".
I mean, it really is that simple.
Senate OK sends Iraq bill to Bush
As reported here, [i]n a bold challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.
The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."
President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.
The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.
So why go ahead with this?
Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.
I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.
The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.
Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.
But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.
A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.
The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."
President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.
The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.
So why go ahead with this?
Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.
I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.
The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.
Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.
But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
All in a Good Cause
Orson Scott Card, over at the The Ornery American, has written an excellent essay regarding the absolute hoax that "global warming" is, citing how climate data was manipulated by Michael Mann to fit his preconceived notions on what should be the results, rather than on the actual data, which produced the [in]famous "Hockey Stick" graph.
It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.
H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer
It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.
H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)