|
| |
The Lunch Counter
|
Monday, May 30, 2005
|
|
Laying the wreath. . .
Today President Bush laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. The White House has posted his remarks here. He said: At our National Cemetery, we're reminded why America has always been a reluctant warrior. This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, a victory for which more than 400,000 Americans gave their lives. Their courage crossed two oceans, and it conquered tyrants. Some of you here today fought in that war as young men, and we make this pledge to you: America will always honor the character and the achievements of your brave generation. (Applause.)
Today we also remember the Americans who are still missing. We honor them. And our nation is determined to account for all of them. (Applause.)
Another generation is fighting a new war against an enemy that threatens the peace and stability of the world. Across the globe, our military is standing directly between our people and the worst dangers in the world, and Americans are grateful to have such brave defenders. (Applause.) The war on terror has brought great costs. For those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, today is a day of last letters and fresh tears. Because of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, two terror regimes are gone forever, freedom is on the march, and America is more secure. (Applause.) After referring to some of those who have died in our current struggle, he said: These are the men and women who wear our uniform. These are the men and women who defend our freedom. And these are the men and women who are buried here. As we look across these acres, we begin to tally the cost of our freedom, and we count it a privilege to be citizens of the country served by so many brave men and women. (Applause.) And we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, by defeating the terrorists, advancing the cause of liberty, and building a safer world. (Applause.)
A day will come when there will be no one left who knew the men and women buried here. Yet Americans will still come to visit, to pay tribute to the many who gave their lives for freedom, who liberated the oppressed, and who left the world a safer and better place. Today we pray that they have found peace with their Creator, and we resolve that their sacrifice will always be remembered by a grateful nation. Below is the White House photo of the crowd inside the amphitheatre at Arlington today.
[Power Line]
3:25:34 PM 
|
|
On the very day that we honor our war dead, the fathers and grandfathers and mothers and grandmothers who paid the ultimate price defending our country, lawyers come to the aide of the enemy combatants at GITMO. Yet another reason to bring sanity back to the Supreme Court. NYT Link
9:03:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 29, 2005
|
|
EU Grounds Flying Fortress
Speaking of the EU, here's
another reason
not to like it:
A World War II Flying Fortress cannot make a flypast at a tribute for America's war dead [May 30] because of barmy EU insurance rules.
Sally B, Britain's last flying B-17, was due to take part in the Memorial Day event at the American military cemetery at Madingley near Cambridge.
Thousands of American airmen laid to rest in the cemetery's graves once flew in B-17 bombers and of the 45,000 US air crew who lost their lives over Europe in WWII most took off from British bases.
But thanks to Brussels, much-loved Sally B, is now in the same insurance category as a passenger jet.
This month the new aircraft insurance rules sent her annual premium soaring 50 per cent by an unaffordable £25,000 and she has been grounded ever since.
Sally B, which is operated by a charity and based at the Imperial War Museum's aviation collection at Duxford, has already been forced to miss Victory in Europe commemorations in Southampton.
It costs £300,000 to keep her airborne each year and she is paid an 'appearance fee' for flypasts.
If she does not fly again soon, her operators fear they will have no choice but to sell her to American collectors.
Their spokesman Sean Maffett said that Sally B had flown on Memorial Day for the last 30 years. He said it was "ironic" that she had now been grounded by Brussels bureaucrats.
He said: "It is quite extraordinary and ironic that this year because of European bureaucracy,
which would not even exist but for the B-17,
Sally B will not be flying.
"Even when Sally B is on training flights from Duxford, she tries to fly over the cemetery at least once because it means so much to anyone there to look up and see her...
Read the entire article, from Britain's Life Style Extra,
here
.
A tip of the hat to Dr. Eamonn Butler of Britain's Adam Smith Institute for alerting me to this story in a blog post he wrote on the excellent
Adam Smith Institute Blog
. Butler's post on the Flying Fortress is accessible
here
.
9:46:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, May 28, 2005
|
|
Just the thought of Americans flushing a Koran (a physical impossibility) down the toilet, which didn't happen, but led to rioting in Muslim countries where 16 or 17 people were killed says more about them as a people than the book called the Koran. Bad America, Kill Americans, and so forth. The media made sure we saw it, they've been repeating the story every day ever since. One scumbag prisoner raised most of the allegations. Who upon further interrogation says it was something he had heard about, not something he saw. Note to the left, these terrorists are trained to make up stuff like that which will play on your sensibilities and get you to be on their side. Did it work? However, where are the demonstrations and protests and rioting from these same depraved human beings over the blowing up of Muslim Shrines, Muslims, and oh yes the Koran? Nobody cares. Picture this. Zarqawi snatches an American from the streets of Baghdad. Let's call him Nick Berg. First thing Zarqawi does is respect Nick's religious beliefs and gives him a copy of the Holy Bible, and sets aside 5 or 6 times each day for him to pray while being held captive. That the media and the left are making the most of this lie to nip at the heels of the administration should be no surprise. The fact that it also emboldens the enemy is inconsequential to them. I sort of take that back. It's not that emboldening the enemy is inconsequential to them, it is essential to them that it be so. With the cooperation of the enemy, they think it helps their ideological argument that it is either an illegal war or one we should get out of and should never have gotten into. So those terrorists, enemy combatants, 12th century human beings, belong right where they are, until the end of the war on terror. And if the timeline means a life in prison then that's what they get. And may the biased media, the ACLU, and the Amnesty International club be dammed.
1:08:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 26, 2005
|
|
Tell me this is not where this is going. The marketing of babies has begun. Supply is going to meet the demand, nevermind it is the absolute trashing of the dignity of human life. No little Johnny, your mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy, couldn't make you, so we bought you instead. From the cheapest one we could find. How's that for a family story?
It goes much deeper than that. This is the end-run around legislatures that already have laws on the books prohibiting gays from adopting, and to pre-empt the remaining states from, they wish, legislating against it. This quote says it all:
As legislatures debate giving gay couples the right to marry - 14 states have amended their constitutions to prevent it - hundreds of couples are finding ways to create families with or without marriage through surrogates like Ms. Stiller, who are willing to help them have children genetically linked to them and to bypass the often difficult legal challenges gay men face in adoption.
Surrogate Mothers' New Niche: Bearing Babies for Gay Couples. As legislatures debate giving gay couples the right to marry, hundreds of couples are finding ways to create families with or without marriage through surrogates. By By GINIA BELLAFANTE. [NYT > Home Page]
11:36:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
|
|
This whole deal is BS because there is no deal. Where's the deal? What has changed? Nothing. Except, the conspiracy (or agreement) to block the constitutional or nuclear option from happening. So, the deal is to put a happy face on judicial filibusters. I'm disgusted with them.
The dems will continue to use the filibuster if they feel like it, in judiciary committee, to nominees that have a majority of support in the Senate. I repeat, to nominees that have a majority of support in the Senate.
Dems win this one, once again with help from opportunistic politicians in the republican party.
Question is, who will pick the next supreme court justice, and the one after that? Will it be the president, or will it be 14 outlaw politicians. It seems having a real majority actually necessitates at least 58 now. Now you have to allow for the media face-time crowd to cut and run.
Just consider this for a moment. Not a week ago, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Byrd, Dean, etc. were saying how extreme these nominees were. Most extreeeem in recorded history. Even before that.
But now? They're just fine.
Something is wrong with this picture. It's all, I mean ALL about the Supreme Court's anticipated vacancies. If these judges were so terrible then why are they going to approve them? Come hell or high water, and John McCain, to have a filibuster removed from the judicial nomination process would be equivalent to cutting the democrat party's jugular. It's just that important to them, and it shouldn't be.
12:46:43 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, May 21, 2005
|
|
Delivering the democrats'weekly radio address today, Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-FL) says 'Our young workers have the most to lose in the debate over Social Security.' When just the opposite is the case. As in any long term savings program, the longer you are in it the more you will have accumulated. A 50 yr old wouldn't do near as good compared to an 18 yr old entering the work force upon retirement.
Then there's this gem, 'Even if you don't open a private account, you will still see a significant benefit cut,' Meek said. Well Duh! Even if you don't? That should be especially if you don't Mr. Meek.
I'd rather lose an issue with dignity than to go down lying about it. For this party, honesty and integrity fall lower on the list than getting their power back.
Democrat Urges Young to Oppose Bush Plan (AP). AP - Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., appealed to young taxpayers Saturday to oppose President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, saying they had to the most to lose from the change. [Yahoo! News: Politics News]
4:16:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, May 20, 2005
|
|
As Dems shore up base, GOP goes 'raiding' was the headline in USA Today online yesterday. This made me laugh, because it is the same thing they were doing last October leading up to the election. Your humble corrrespondent recalls; Bush is trying to reach them; Kerry is trying to keep them.
It's amazing to watch this meltdown of the democrat party, lead on by their party chairman Howard Dean. They should keep him there. Or maybe George Soros if he's a U.S. citizen.
1:10:10 PM
|
|
Did you see Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on the floor of the Senate yesterday? He was supposed to be speaking about the filibuster but he entertained us instead with giant flash cards. One said 98.5%. He draws on an invalid equavalancy comparing the percentage of nominees confirmed under Clinton's administration with that of Bush. He says Bush has received 98 percent of what he's asked for and the other two percent is just too extreem for the country.
We start by separating the apples from the oranges. The percentage Lautenberg puts up includes nominees from the lower courts too, of which comprise the greater numbers. Lower court nominees get approved out of hand, it's the federal apeallate level that the left is testy over, and the percentage of approval there is around 55%.
When a majority party only has 55% of their nominees that have moved to the floor for an up or down vote, makes you wonder why the obstruction there, and not the lower level? You already know the reason, the federal courts of appeals (and up) are depended on by the democrats to inject their policies into law rather than the old fashioned way, through the legislatures and the ballot box. Democracy doesn't suit them as well as judicial activism.
4:02:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 19, 2005
|
|
Extremist Judicial Nominees
Salon
has a new article posted Friday listing the "extremist credentials" of seven Bush judicial nominees.
Here's the article's first complaint:
An assessment of the nominees' records suggests that all consider government regulation a central problem, while they view private enterprise and property a bedrock constitutional right.
Meanwhile,
a document a tad older than the Senate filibuster rules
says:
No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Would Salon's editors consider James Madison deserving of a straight up-or-down vote?
- Amy Ridenour [Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog]
11:23:44 PM
|
|
Having no shame or integrity whatsoever, flip-flop Scott Ritter writes opinion pages for AlJazeera. His furtive imagination about what Bush is or is not doing is red meat for the unwashed socialist cool-aid drinking far left, who are awash in conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory that the dumbest man in the world has created. What? The point in making this post is not to give the jerk any traction. He discredited himself years ago. It's because you're not going to hear about it anywhere else.
9:37:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
|
|
Listening to him whine on the floor of the Senate five minutes ago, the Senator admits that the majority has the power and legal authority to make rules in the Senate, and in the same sentence says that the majority is using its power over the minority. Shazam. Imagine that! Sounds just like the majority rules concept is beginning to sink in for him. The minority still has rights contrary to what he is whining about, but there is no right to a majority when you're a minority.
I can't for the life of me understand why they're against this. It would after all give them the same assurances of nominees being sent to the floor for an up or down vote if and when they ever become a majority party. They're just being obstinate and obstructionist because that is their party platform. Their underground platform is to pack courts with judges who are not originalists or strict constructionists, but rather with ones who will make new law by bypassing and/or overturning legislatures everywhere.
10:17:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
|
|
So Newsweek makes the long-overdue retraction to their inflamatory fictional story. Problem is, the rioting isn't happening here, it's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they're so wound up now, they don't beleive the retraction, IF they even know about it.  Isn't on AlJazeera.Net website. It is on their server but with no links from any pages pointing to it. If you were persistent enough and used their search window on 'newsweek', you'll find the retraction. AlJazeera's editors could have learned from the NYT, print what you want them to know, not everything you know. Newsweek's retraction wasn't on their front page. In fact it wasn't on any page. To see the retraction on AlJazeera, you have to use their searchbox and search on 'newsweek.' That's how I found it. If Newsweek thinks their retraction news actually got to the affected Muslims they couldn't be more wrong. They could apologize 'till the cows come home and they'd only be wasting their breath. Newsweek should be the one to deliver the message OVER THERE where it needs to be heard. The damage they must have anticipated is now done and beyond repair to the rioters. But the rest of the Muslim world should be given the opportunity to see it, at Newsweek's expense.
7:01:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 16, 2005
|
|
Star Parker Nails it on Social Security
Black leader Star Parker on Social Security:
The simple truth is that the Social Security system needs to be replaced with one in which American workers retain their own money and invest in their own retirement accounts. Our task is to devise a plan to let workers opt for personal accounts. And, in the meantime, we must tap our resources to meet existing obligations to current retirees. That's it. Clear and simple.
11:28:37 PM
|
|
Funding PBS
An argument against the existence of PBS :
An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too. This quote comes from Bill Moyers, who, strangely, thought it was an argument in favor of government-run news broadcasting.
11:28:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 15, 2005
|
|
The Center for Individual Freedom filed a complaint Friday with the Senate Ethics Committee charging Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) with blatantly violating the Standing Rules of the Senate.
The complaint stems from Senator Reid’s public reference to a confidential FBI background report in disparaging comments he made about Judge Henry Saad, a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
9:24:20 AM
|
|
Florida's own Congresman Robert Wexler (D) weighs in on Social Security, saying on his website that Social Security is sound, although going bankrupt. Is it just him, or are they all that way? No, I think he has a lot of company. People like, Wexler, Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, those kind, not all democrats. It's democrats like these who will say that an increase is a cut with a straight face, so it follows with their response to Bush's plan.
From Rep. Wexler's website's Social Security page, paragraph one:
First, let me assure you that Social Security is a sound program.
From paragraph two:
Any attempt to create separate individual accounts for Social Security will only drain the current system, thereby bankrupting the system sooner than expected.
'Note to Congressman Wexler: If a system is expected to become bankrupt, it is not sound.'
Thanks to the National Center Blog for that quote. Couldn't have said it better myself.
12:15:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, May 13, 2005
|
|
Senate Judicial Filibuster Showdown Nears
The Senate showdown on judicial nominations draws ever closer. Majority Leader Bill Frist's office released the following statement today:
STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
Upon completion of action on the pending highway bill, the Senate will begin debate on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations. As is the regular order, the Leader will move to act on judge nominations sent to the full Senate by the Judiciary Committee in the past several weeks. Priscilla Owen, to serve as a judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, to serve as a judge for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, will be the nominees of focus.
The Majority Leader will continue to discuss an appropriate resolution of the need for fair up or down votes with the Minority Leader. If they can not find a way for the Senate to decide on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations, the Majority Leader will seek a ruling from the Presiding Officer regarding the appropriate length of time for debate on such nominees. After the ruling, he will ensure that every Senator has the opportunity to decide whether to restore the 214-year practice of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees; or, to enshrine a new veto by filibuster that both denies all Senators the opportunity to advise and consent and fundamentally disturbs the separation of powers between the branches.
There will be a full and vigorous Senate floor debate that is too important for parliamentary tactics to speed it up or slow it down until all members who wish have had their say. All members are encouraged to ensure that rhetoric in this debate follows the rules, and best traditions, of the Senate.
It is time for 100 Senators to decide the issue of fair up or down votes for judicial nominees after over two years of unprecedented obstructionism. The Minority has made public threats that much of the Senate's work will be shut down. Such threats are unfortunate.
The Majority Leader has proposed his Fairness Rule: up to 100 hours of debate, and then an up or down vote on circuit and Supreme Court nominations. Further, the Fairness Rule would eliminate the opportunity for blockade of such nominees at the Judiciary Committee. And finally, it will make no changes to the legislative filibuster.
If Senators believe a nominee is qualified, they should have the opportunity to vote for her. If they believe she is unqualified, they should have the opportunity to vote against her.
Members must decide if their legacy to the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster's barrier to the Constitutional responsibility of all Senators to advise and consent with fair, up or down votes.
-30-
9:45:29 PM
|
|
Filibusters: A History
Blog readers might find this document, being distributed today by the Senate Republican Conference , of interest:
Dates Democrats Want to Forget
1787
The year the U.S. Constitution was ratified without the filibuster as part of it
1789
The year the Senate was originally constituted with rules that permitted a majority vote to end debate
1806
The year that the filibuster became theoretically possible through an inadvertent rules change
1837
The year that a filibuster was used for the first time to block legislation
1917
The year that a "cloture" rule was adopted to control legislative filibusters
1949
The year that the Senate rules were changed to extend cloture to all debatable matters, including nominations
1968
The first time a bipartisan filibuster was used to deny a judicial nominee an up-or-down vote. But the nominee, Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, did not have majority support, and was opposed by one-third of his own party. He withdrew his nomination shortly after the failed cloture vote. In contrast, every one of the filibustered judicial nominees in 2003 and 2004 had majority support.
1977, 1979, 1980, 1987
The years in which then Senate Majority-Leader Robert Byrd employed the constitutional option in order to limit minority and individual Senators' rights
2003, 2004
The years in which partisan filibusters were used for the first time to deny confirmation to a judicial nominee with majority support. Ten nominees were blocked from getting up-or-down votes due to the filibuster
2005
The year the Senate will restore the 214-year tradition of up-or-down votes on every judicial nominee with majority support Thanks to Barbara Ledeen of the SRC for sharing it.
9:44:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 12, 2005
|
|
As this story plainly states, 4 dead and over 50 injured in riots in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, which followed an article in Newsweek magazine that said investigators probing abuses at Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba had discovered that interrogators "had placed Korans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet".
Four dead as Afghans riot over Koran report [Telegraph News | Breaking News]
When will the media learn that the war is also being waged in the media? Or did they get the reaction they expected when considering publishing it? I'm sorry, but I don't go along with the bash America / Anti-War crowd that simply relishes on any little thing that could be either embarrassing or a hinderance in prosecuting this war.
Then this:Newsweek Retracts Report on Koran Insult After U.S. Pressure. Newsweek apologized on Sunday for reporting that the Koran had been desecrated by U.S. guards, but the White House urged them to do more. By By CHRISTINE HAUSER and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE.
Journalists and the Military. Newsweek's explosive allegation was no "honest mistake." [OpinionJournal.com]
12:37:14 AM
|
|
Three headlines you won't see in the newspapers. Not above the fold, not even in section A. After years of democrat groups and Judicial Watch's lawsuits trying to obtain records from private meetings with energy industry experts conducted by Vice President Cheney, the appeals court has dismissed the case. 
What has critics and plaintiffs in the lawsuit riled is that Cheney met with industry leaders, leaders in all areas of energy production, distribution and power grids, and consumption to gather information that would lead to the development of an energy policy. What a shock. That's exactly what I'd expect to happen. Get advise from energy people for an energy policy. Same as one would expect to meet with scientists and environmental people when making an environmental policy. But you don't have environmentalists make your energy policy. Same as you would not like an environmental policy written by leaders in the health care industry. Don't know why these people don't see the logic in this. Maybe this court decision will cause them to move on to the next 'crisis'.
The unanimous ruling further solidifies the president's power to deliberate and seek advice behind closed doors without disclosing details. The court's eight judges supported the Bush administration's contention that forcing the executive branch to produce information about its internal policy deliberations is unnecessarily intrusive and violates the president's constitutional powers.
"The president must be free to seek confidential information from many sources, both inside the government and outside," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Cheney Wins Court Ruling On Energy Panel Records . A federal appeals court in Washington dismissed a lawsuit yesterday that sought to force Vice President Cheney to turn over records of private meetings his office held in 2001 to shape the administration's energy policy. By By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei. [Politics]
12:21:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, May 07, 2005
|
|
Philadelphia's Mayor Street rebuked the city council's directive to pick-up trash at condos in the city of brotherly love, now the state's supreme court orders him to do so by upholding previous court decisions.
4:45:38 PM
|
|
In Cape May, men may once again strut their stuff down the promenade, after a 30 year ban on speedos worn by men on the streets and 'boardwalk.' That'd be good news too to the French Canadians, of all ages and weight. Makes me wonder if they have mirrors in Canada.
Bill Blotter: Man Bikinis Allowed in N.J. Beach Town. Town Lifts Speedo Ban, Calif. Lawmaker Moved to Ban Selling Cloned Animals and Some States Relax Hai Braiding Rules [ABC News: Politics]
8:57:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 05, 2005
|
|
If an important event occurs, and nobody reports it, did it happen?
Whether it's liberal bias or utter incompetence, Americans should, once again, be VERY concerned with the choices being made by our nation's press editors on a daily basis. Here's another extraordinary example.
On Monday, May 2nd, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that, due to a greater than expected influx of tax receipts around April 15, a projected monthly deficit actually became a surplus. [ChronWatch Writers' Blog]
3:38:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
|
|
Let's see how this works. Democrats are part of the legislature which made the law. Rather than trying again to get something passed in the legislature, they go right to and depend on the courts, a judge, to overturn the will of the people, and re-write the law to their liking from the bench.
Which for me explains why we aren't hearing any democrat saying what their plan is, to any criticism they have of what Bush is doing or would do. Their platform is vacuous. Actually, for the last 5 years it's only been obstruct Bush and anything and everything he tries to do. Everything. Understand? That's their platform. To really function as a viable party again, they're going to have to ween themselves from using the Judiciary as their underground legislature, and begin doing it the old fashioned, constitutional way. Which is to say, it might take a generation or two to make that adjustment.
So in Indiana they are fighting a free picture ID for all voters, in order to better prevent voter fraud.
Critics say requiring a photo ID at the polls unfairly affects the poor, minorities, people with disabilities and the elderly, many of whom do not have driver's licenses and might struggle to obtain a photo ID.
You know what? Sometimes you do have to struggle to protect things, like yourself, your country, your freedom. Don't get me started here, some people do think freedom is free.
The law offers free photo ID cards for those who cannot afford a driver's license and makes exemptions for some people in nursing homes and state institutions.
Guess this is what happens when you have all these underemploed democrat lawyers sent out to watch the polling stations. Planning their next court battle instead of planning a legislative agenda that people will vote for.
Democrats Sue Over Indiana Voter ID Law. Democrats File Federal Lawsuit to Overturn New Indiana Voter Identification Law [ABC News: Politics]
12:57:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 02, 2005
|
|
Great post by Ann Coulter on the left's obstruction of Bush's judicial nominees. Ann clears the smoke on their strategy in a sobering way that she does so well. Click her post Drag Liberals Into The Light for article. She makes several good points, below is one of them.
begin snippet---
Why do the Democrats want to keep judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen off the federal bench?
As I understand it, the reason Democrats are in a blind rage about Priscilla Owen is that, as a state court judge in Texas, Owen interpreted a law passed by the Texas Legislature requiring parental consent for 14-year-old girls to have abortions to mean that parental consent was required for 14-year-old girls to have abortions.
---end snippet
4:05:21 PM
|
|
Hillary Clinton has officially lost her mind...
In an interview responding to Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, the Defense Intelligence Agency chief's statement that North Korea had been judged to have the "capability" to put a nuclear weapon atop its missiles, Sentatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton Rodham Rodham Clinton Rodham Rodham called Jacoby's testimony "the first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States."
The Senatrix added, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."
Put even more simply, Ms. Rodham Rodham Clinton Rodham, they couldn't do that before your husband gave Kim Jong Il the ability to develop those weapons in the first place."
Perhaps you were too distracted by Monica's Presidential Knee-Pads to have noticed.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the face of the Democratic Party: A woman who is personally instrumental in causing national security problems of nuclear proportions, and then has the cajones to blame it on somebody other than her husband.
Next they'll be blaming Bush for 9/11 and the war against Al-Qaeda....oh, that's right, those are his fault, too. Thanks for the reminder, John Kerry! [ChronWatch Writers' Blog]
2:49:15 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Ross Calloway.
Last update: 11/27/2005; 8:40:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
