|
| |
The Lunch Counter
|
Saturday, April 30, 2005
|
|
The only flaw I can see with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is that it is a U.N. treaty which comes with an automatic lack-of-will towards enforcement. Similar to the 12 years and 18 resolutions preceeding our enforcement of another U.N. venture.
The U.N. just goes back and forth from incompetent to corrupt, to incompetent, to corrupt. . .
Iran Threatens to Resume Plans on Nuclear Fuel. The threat was made today as representatives of 189 nations prepare to meet at the United Nations to review the flaws in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. By By DAVID E. SANGER. [NYT > Home Page]
2:57:11 PM 
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
|
|
10:54:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 25, 2005
|
|
The amount of spin coming from the left on the subject of their propensity to filibuster the President's judicial nominees has been nothing close to the truth and as such is dangerous, in that John Q. Public doesn't know he's being lied to when Kennedy and Robert Byrd say that republicans want to end the filibuster and end their right of free speech and stripping the minority of using the filibuster. The majority is running roughshod over the minority, etc... The republicans want to change 200 years of history and remove the filibusters. You've heard all that in the biased media.
Now for the un-dumbed down no-spin version.
First thing to do is separate the apples from the oranges. This is where the left's spin is dangerous. Kennedy and Byrd aren't telling you that there is no intention to touch the filibuster as pertains to legislation, ie in both houses of congress. All the majority wants to do is rule that the filibuster cannot apply to judicial nominees, that's it. The constitutional reasoning for this is that only a simple majority (51) is required for confirmation of a judicial nominee. That's what the Constitution says. The Constitution also spells out a few instances where a supermajority of the Senate is required, and, judicial nominees in committee is not one of them.
As for tradition, never before in the history of our country has a political party invoked the filibuster to block JUDICIAL NOMINEES. period It is true that the filibuster has been used when deliberating legislation, as that is an acceptable tool in forming legislation. But the filibuster HAS NEVER been used to block judicial nominations from going to the Senate for a vote until the democrats on the committee started it in the last Congress. What's the big deal you might say? The big deal is that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, which is procedure. And unless a filibuster is broken, that nominee is prevented from getting voted on by the Senate. It's a clever way of altering the Constitution without touching it. It is these democrats that are breaking with 200 years of tradition and practicing the obstructionism they seem to enjoy. Because of invoking the filibuster on Bush's nominees, it is forcing a super-majority vote on something that constitutionally only requires a simple majority. It is the republicans that want to preserve 200 years of tradition, not kill it like the dems are saying. It is the dems who have broken with tradition and are now lying about it.
Aside from all that, why should it matter who the President nominates? The judges only interpret law, they don't make law. (right) Whoever it is deserves the Senate vote, the same as the Senators deserve their right to vote on them. It's the dems that are preventing the Senators from performing their duty, which is voting up or down on the nominees. If the nominee gets over 50 votes in the Senate, it is done. If not, then it's up to the President to pick someone else and try again.
The nuclear option or constitutional option? How about the right-to-a-vote option?
4:14:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 21, 2005
|
|
Sec. Of State Condoleezza Rice On Democracy vs Socialism
No one says it better in doing the work she does. Imagine how good it would be if stuff like this was tought in our public schools? Below from Power Line, Condoleezza's quotes, her own.
Condoleezza Rice is in Russia; it is hard to imagine a better representative for our country. Figaro reports that Russians call her the Black Panther, and it is easy to imagine the impression she makes. Watching America has a translation of a question and answer session she did with listeners on a Moscow radio station. Her answers were uniformly crisp and informative; I especially liked her response to a question about how America's "exporting of democracy" is different from Russia's former efforts to export socialist revolution:
What is better, the export of democracy, or the export of socialist revolutions? You probably know that at the beginning of the last century there was a concept of exporting revolutions from the USSR. Now is the United States exporting democracy?
No, there are very serious differences, historical differences, and from the practical point of view there is no necessity to export democracy. The people themselves feel that they want to have those freedoms that you get from democratic development. If you ask people whether they want to be able to say what they want to say, whether they want to practice whatever religion they chose, whether they want the freedom to educate their children, girls and boys, whether they want to be free from that knock on the door from the secret police, the people will say, yes, of course we want this. And that is why there is no need to export democracy or to implement democracy from above. People must be given the opportunity to freely express their wishes. And they will choose democracy, and so here I think the old terminology about exporting democracy has gotten old.
Secretary Rice answered some questions diplomatically, but there was only one question that she sidestepped entirely:
And one last question. We’ve got a 15-year-old schoolgirl asking what she can do to live like Condoleezza Rice. What does it take to make a career like Condoleezza Rice’s? What does it take to be like Condoleezza Rice?
Ms. Rice had to dodge the question, because if she had answered it candidly, she would have had to say: to begin with, you have to be born in America. [Power Line]
12:02:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
|
|
Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio reminded me of jumpin Jim Jeffords yesterday when he cold-cocked the John Bolton nomination. As soon as I could get back to the keyboard he received my email below. Send yours today.
How can you be proud of yourself for sinking, for now, the Bolton
nomination?
We have our party, they have theirs. What we need representing us in the
U.N. is someone who won't kowtow to the worthless U.N. but will represent
us and the president. Someone like Bolton.
If you can't support him and I on this then you might consider joining
their party.
You haven't learned yet how to be a majority and work together to
accomplish an agenda. You haven't had the opportunity in over 40 years to
show the country how great it can be, so why torpedo it now?
Yesterday in the committee room, you simply appeared to be Jim Jeffords
all over again. Doing anything to grab media attention and cause the plan
to fail.
And I mean this in the kindest sense; get some balls or get out.
3:39:35 PM
|
|
Now it's DeLay slamming a supreme court justice. You could call it a slam if you think like most liberals or are an ABC reporter. I call it exposing, not slamming. Most of the country is unaware of Kennedy's basing a recent decision not on the Constitution, which is the entirety of his scope of perview, but instead on a proposed law of a foreign government. That's what DeLay was talking about, and that is a matter of court record and not a product of Carl Rove or Haliburton.
The focus of this media giant's story is the shock that a justice was singled out for criticism 'Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.' That, and the fact that DeLay called Kennedy's ignoring the constitution as 'incredibly outrageous', and who could disagree? And what's unusual about it anyway. Why, I remember vividly Ted Kennedy calling Justice Clarance Thomas a neanderthal wanting to turn back the clock.
The reporter made no attempt to examine what DeLay said, only that he was critical. Exactly the same scenario when a memo was leaked from Sen. Rokefeller's office concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee's work. The media zeroed in on how the memo got out, totally ignoring the content, which shows baldfaced politicising the work of a committee crucial to our national defense. They got a pass then just like Kennedy is getting a pass now.
The Supremes may ONLY interpret the U.S. Constitution, using the U.S. Constitution. Anything and everything else is irrelevant to their sole purpose. Yes, Kennedy went, and is, way out-of- bounds and should be called on it. It is the legislature that gives the courts whatever power and jurisdiction it has, or does not have. DeLay has (to steal a liberal rant) not only the right but the responsibility to call to question the wanton disregard for the Constitution when perpetrated by any Supreme Court Justice. But in this case, it is Anthony Kennedy. Where Kennedy is concerned, the media takes a big 'oh-hum' and continues it's profile of DeLay.
12:39:43 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 18, 2005
|
|
This is real simple. It's no secret that the democrat party, becoming known as the NO party, can't stand republicans who are effective. And they have a way of dealing with them.
Remember how Newt Gingrich became the target, and the noise around him was so loud he decided to sacrifice himself and leave. Their MO is this; it's not the facts that count as much as the seriousness of the charge. And so it goes with DeLay.
So you get a half dozen people, driven and financed by 527's, to file complaints on DeLay. The idea is to bog him down in investigations and hearings so that, like Newt, he'll quit. You see, when they can't deal with republicans at the ballot box, they try to kick them out of the game.
All the current accusations leveled at DeLay are old and have already been investigated beginning in 1997, and found to be NOT in violation of any law. In fact, taking trips financed by non-profit organizations is not only legal, but is practiced by most politicians in Washington. In fact, employing family members for campaign work is also perfectly legal when paid for by the campaign, and is also a common practice. This point was specifically approved by the ethics committee back in 2002, at the request of Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., who wanted to do the same. Oh, as did Barbara Boxer.
The NO party has nothing to offer, except attack, attack, and attack. But, unlike the result they got with Gingrich, we're not going down that road this time.
Next time you hear Sen. Ted Kennedy or Rep. Barbara Boxer spout out their accusations towards DeLay, you'll know they're just following the script.
In Boxer's case, she goes to the floor of the House of Representatives and enumerates all the complaints on DeLay. In fact, she calls it a disturbing pattern of behavior. Well, what she is not honest enough to say is that the 'pattern' was created by the democrat operatives who filed the bogus complaints.
This is nothing new to democrat leaders. Remember in the last election? They sent out thousands of lawyers and activists to report on problems at the polls, and, if there were none, then make some up so it gets in the news.
This media frenzy did have one positive affect, sort of. We know now who the weak kneed republicans are who were too quick to throw DeLay overboard. All of them should be overtly supportive of DeLay and simply call the democrat spin what it is.
11:14:59 PM
|
|
Muslims To March Against Terror.
Haider Ajina alerted us to an event scheduled for May 14 called "Free Muslims March Against Terror." The march has been endorsed by approximately thirty organizations (not all of them Muslim), and will take place in Washington, D.C. Here is the press release:
On May 14, Washington DC will witness its first ever March Against Terror. Since we announced the Rally nearly 30 organizations have endorsed it and more are on the way. Among the list of speakers are several Congressmen and Senators. We want to remind everyone that this rally is open to people of all backgrounds. We hope to have the endorsements of at least 100 organizations and places of worship. If you have not yet endorsed please do so by sending us an email with the name of your organization, church, mosque, synagogue, temple, business, civic association, and club or student association.
Please join us and help us send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered. Also, join us in sending a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.
Please circulate this message to as many groups and people as possible. Help us make history.
To sponsor this rally, please send the name of your group to the Free Muslims Against Terrorism. President@freemuslims.org
I don't know anything about the organizers, but Haider is well plugged in and endorses their effort. In my opinion, there is literally nothing in the world more important than for Muslims to band together to decisively reject and isolate the terrorists. The rally will take place at Freedom Plaza, on Pennsylvania Ave. between 13th and 14th Streets, NW. I hope a whole lot of people turn out. [Power Line]
11:06:49 PM
|
|
See how the AARP is the democrat lobby of the aged. Want a couple examples? Check out the Wall Street Journal link below.
AARP's Double Game. AARP isn't negotiating on Social Security in good faith. [OpinionJournal.com]
12:32:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, April 16, 2005
|
|
Remember the flap over the airport security screeners and whether they should be replaced with more qualified (in any sense of the word) personnel to help protect our homeland? Unions mounted a fight and won. The end result of that 'reform' was to convert their status from nothing to federal employees.
At the time the proponents for a personnel shift said that making an incompetent employee a federal employee would do nothing to keep us safer. This article finally proves the point, and we have the selfish short-sighted unions to thank for that. Well, to be fair, you can also thank the spaghetti spined republicans in the administration for conceeding to them. Also, let us not forget that Bill Clinton put Al Gore in charge of airport security during his administration. This whitewash was just that. I think we can say that that plan was also an utter failure, especially in Boston on 9/11/2001.
AP: Reports to Say Airport Baggage Screening Still Poor. Upcoming government reports will say the quality of luggage examinations at airports has not improved since before the Sept. 11 attacks. By foxnewsonline@foxnews.com. [FOXNews.com - Politics]
8:01:49 AM
|
|
Some background on the OFF (Oil For Food) program and the U.N.'s involvement. If you thought there was no corruption, think again.
Corruption in Plain View. What the latest Oil for Food indictments say about the U.N. [OpinionJournal.com]
7:45:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 14, 2005
|
|
It is not ethical to troll for dollars on official State of Florida stationary. It's also dishonest to falsify your background on your official biography. Can't solicit money from lobbyists of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. either.
This is official. As opposed to bogus accusations on trumped up charges that Tom DeLay is having to deal with right now.
Ethics Panel Reprimands Fla. State Senator (AP). AP - A legislator serving on the state Senate's ethics committee was formally reprimanded Thursday for soliciting money from lobbyists to help pay for an overseas trip for her and a friend. [Yahoo! News: Politics]
2:34:59 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
|
|
A 16-year-old disabled girl was punched and forced to engage in videotaped sexual acts with several boys in a high school auditorium as dozens of students watched, according to witnesses. The administration tries to cover it up. Is this what our kids should be taught in public schools? They call themselves the Mifflin Punchers.
Columbus Ohio could use some urban renewal in their school system, at least in Mifflin High School. According to their mission statement: 'The Mifflin High School Community is dedicated to the use of available resources to provide quality instructional programs in a safe, clean and orderly environment through which all students will develop to their highest potential, demonstrate mutual respect and prepare for a productive role in our society.'
No charges filed yet. The rape (it is rape if you force someone to have sex isn't it?) occurred last month. They've failed their kids. What's really sick about this is the way the school tried to hush it up. And still no one has been charged? What sort of lesson are they teaching thier kids?
Is someone going to start blaming the girl for this? Or try to pass this off as a school audio/video project gone bad? Those perps should be in juvenile (if they are juveniles) detention, not just 'not in school.' They are out of school, where they can project their violence on more potential victims. And this makes sense to who?
picture from their website unnamed.
another pic from their website
AP story
7:56:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, April 08, 2005
|
|
You've probably never heard of Elaine Jones. You probably have heard about a special investigation to determine who accessed memos from democrats on the senate judiciary committee, detailing their strategy to derail and otherwise obstruct Bush's judicial appointments.
What should be amazing, but it's not, is that the the media's emphasis is on the fact that their dirty little secrets got out, instead of the purely partisan, prejudicial, divisive strategy contained in them.
It's no longer even debatable that the dems are beholden to special interests to shape the federal bench with their judges who think like they do, corrupt and caniving, but Elaine Jones is the proof in the pudding.
Elaine Jones's actions, are not only unethical for a person in her profession, but that's beside the point, the point is that her actions are emblematic of how the democrats are micromanaged by special interests. In this example, the special interest is the NAACP.
Sen. Edward Kennedy ought to be removed from the committee. But that will never happen., unfit to serve due to his bias.
Racist? Biased? Devicive? Democrats? Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.
Brief quote from today's the Wall Street Journal about a memo Ms. Jones wrote to Senator Ted Kennedy:
"An April 17, 2002, memo to Senator Ted Kennedy describing her request that the Democrats on Judiciary "hold off" confirming nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals until the University of Michigan affirmative action case is decided.
At the time Ms. Jones made her appeal, she was lead counsel to a group of Michigan students who were parties to the case--which is to say, she had a direct personal interest in what the court decided. Also at that time, five nominations were pending for Sixth Circuit openings and Ms. Jones was worried that a Bush appointee would tilt the balance against her clients. All the nominations were for slots designated as judicial emergencies.
To put it another way, Democrats on Judiciary were being asked to delay confirmations for a desperately understaffed court not because the nominees were unqualified but because of how they might rule in a particular case. Now, that's "politicizing" the judiciary."
UPDATE 08/16/04: And the REST of the story. La Shawn Barber
related links: 1 2
11:45:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
|
|
Will somebody please tell General Wesley Clark of this progress?
Today he expects to be testifying before the House Armed Services Committee about the war in Iraq. To quote Gen. Clark, 'The hearing will play an important role in our country's ongoing effort to identify what has gone wrong, what has gone right, and what we must do to succeed in Iraq going forward.'
Tune into c-span, if they carry it, and watch Clark make a point about alleged 'support' for his agenda. Support that he solicited in his newsletter. It's not real, it's memorex.
Begin snippet---
It's critical that America's leaders hear directly from the people on the important issues facing our country -- especially issues where American lives are at stake. And I hope that my appearance before the Armed Services Committee will be one way they hear that message, loud and clear.
I have my own strong beliefs about our policy in Iraq, and I will be sharing those on Wednesday. But I need the power of your questions and insights there at that witness table with me.
Please complete my Iraq survey today!
---end snippet
To this writer it seems his best advise would be to step aside and give up on trying to make mountains out of molehills on what is now a matter of over-investigated history.
Iraqis in Accord on Top Positions, Ending Deadlock. The agreement breaks a two-month deadlock and is the first significant step in forming a new government. By By EDWARD WONG. [NYT > Home Page]
7:36:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, April 03, 2005
|
|
I sort of apologize, and because you need to know the whole story, I've got this book.
That's about how the interview with Jane Fonda went on 60 Minutes tonight. The See BS network promoted this segment earlier in the week, describing it as an apology by Jane Fonda. My first thought was 'who cares?'
She was there to sell her book. 60 Minutes is known for book tour premiers. One thing is for sure, her 'apology' covered one and only one thing, the sitting in the anti-aircraft gun. Everything else was just fine with her. She was electrically obstinate that anything else she did in Vietnam was not in support of the troops. If she thought her so-called apology would change anyone's opinion of her, she was wrong. If the piece was meant to do that then it was a miserable failure. Nope, same Jane Fonda, only more wrinkles.
soft focus filters work
10:15:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, April 02, 2005
|
|
|
|
Friday, April 01, 2005
|
|
Remember Sandy (socks) Berger getting caught on tape taking top secret documents from the National Archives? There won't be much play on this in the news. He is apparently disputing Bill Clinton's explanation, 'ha, that's Sandy, always clumsy with papers, did you ever see his desk? ha ha' Not an exact quote, but what it says is true.
In fact, he is charged with and admits to intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism, in preparation for Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Under a plea agreement, instead of jail, Berger would pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Sentencing is set for July 8.
'Guilty, your honor.'
Admits Shredding Secret Docs
Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Materials. Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Classified Material [ABC News: Politics]
He's no Martha Stewart. Do you think the media would be this mute on the subject if he were a republican? Update: July 15, 2005
12:41:53 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Ross Calloway.
Last update: 4/22/2006; 4:47:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
