"It is inexcusable for a delegate to mock anyone who has ever put on a soldier's uniform," said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
Well, Terry, how much more inexcusable is it for a party chairman to mock an individual who wore the uniform of his country and was honorably discharged on time? Especially when that chairman's candidate had his discharge mysteriously delayed six years.
"Just because you are a terrorist, does that mean you are a communist? I guess that is the best thing I can say," explained Zack, the protestor from California.
"I don't think it's much different from McCarthyism really, it's kind of the same thing, you know. It's going on now. It's like anybody you can claim is a terrorist -- they are screwed," Zack said.
"So everyone out here [protesting] is being pointed to as a terrorist and everybody that has got something to say -- is trying to do something about it -- is a terrorist. They are just trying to be people and doing what they do, you know. I just think it's getting all messed up" he added.
Could someone tell me what this guy just said?
I'm deeply saddened by this development, because I knew Ed Schrock growing up. Ed and his wife, Judy, were neighbors when I was a kid. Judy was a teacher at my school, and I remember holding their son when he was just a few days old. They were, and I presume still are, good people. My prayers are with them at this difficult time.
Hurrah for Radley Balko!
Some stories just need to be told in the author's original words.
The afternoon's drama came toward the end of the panel, with this skinny kid sitting in the front row, who happened to be donning a bright red t-shirt with the Soviet hammer and sickle. I wanted to call him out from the start. I just felt a little crass about it. But as the panel wore on, it continued to gnaw at me. It dawned on me that I or the lefists on the panel would have had no problem calling the kid out if he'd been wearing a t-shirt with neo-Nazi regalia. And he applauded vigorously when the lefties spoke, and sat on his hands when the rest of us spoke, meaning of course that he wasn't wearing the shirt with any sense of irony.
So when he finally raised his hand during the Q&A, I decided that --what the hell -- I might as well point out how silly he looks advertising a belief system rooted in slavery and murder. He asked an unrelated question, which I think the Green Party guy answered. I then chime din, recommending to the kid that he read Anne Applebaum's Gulag, the Pulitzer winning book which documents the horrors of the Soviet work camps. He didn't seem to get it.
So I added, "I know Soviet chic is hip right now, particularly on college campuses. But you really ought to think about the message you send by wearing that shirt. It has all the charm of a swastika."
With that, Hillsdale poly sci Professor David Bobb added, "you're associating yourself with the deaths of 100 million people..."
The kid then interrupted Bobb, with obvious agitation, "Yes, I know all about the history of the Soviet Union."
To which Bobb replied, "Oh, so you know that you're being insulting."
Boos and jeers flited up from the crowd. By the time we had dinner, the kid had thrown a sweater over the t-shirt.
Maybe we need to do such things more loudly and more often.
Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature without his knowledge, Lehman said: "I have no idea. I can only imagine they were signed by an autopen." The autopen is a device often used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.
This makes it look more likely that the Lehman citation for the Silver Star with the illicit combat V, and possibly the Lehman citation for one of the Bronze Stars, was not authorized and is therefore a fraudulent document.
Who is responsible?
How did the narratives get changed?
Will Kerry release his entire file now?
"I became more ashamed of myself than I've ever been because the worst thing I did was get a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance into the Guard and I'm very sorry about that and I apologize to you and the voters of Texas," Barnes said.
In other words, he helped folks from both sides of the political aisle -- and he makes no effort to implicate the former president in his accusation, as he would assuredly have done if the senior Bush had requested a favor. This was how he acted as a matter of course when he became aware of a member of a prominent family seeking to get into the Guard.
But there is also an admission of his own corruption as a public official, and the rot that infected 9and still infects) the Democrats today.
"I got a lot of other people in the National Guard because I thought that's what people should do when you're in office: You help a lot of rich people," Barnes said.
But hold it, sir, I thought that the Democrats were the party of the little people. You mean that it isn't -- that it is really the party of the wealthy special interests? Or was it simply you who is personally corrupt?
And is your corruption and bias towards the rich why you are a key Kerry supporter in Texas, and a major fundraiser for him?
I'm going to try to find out who is responsible for the headlines -- them or AP.
Why my interest? Because the articles are identical -- and refer to a bogus study of 339 family and friends of WTC victims sponsored by the New York Times. So which is it? Are they split, or opposed?
And why do I call the survey bogus? The problem is that the there is no clearly defined pool of people to survey (does our initial universe of survivors include all colse family members and friends, and how do we determine who is close enough to be a survivor), therefore we don't know if the sample is random. And since the survey excluded the families and friends of Pentagon and Pensylvania victims, it isn't really a survey of 9/11 kin like the headline states. In other words, we can't be sure of the reliability of the survey because it is flawed from the get-go.
With the exception of Massachusetts neighbor New Hampshire, the president is holding on to every state he won in 2000. That said,
About a dozen states remain extremely competitive and are widely considered too close to call. Leading that list are Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Missouri, where Bush holds a narrow lead, as well as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania, which now lean toward Kerry.
West Virginia and Arizona are also competitive, but Democrats concede that those state now fall into the Bush column. Likewise, Oregon and Washington state could ultimately back either candidate, but Kerry is currently building a strong base of support in the Pacific Northwest.
The race in Ohio remains extremely fluid, and both campaigns remain highly organized in the Buckeye State. All four principals -- and most of their wives -- have campaigned there at least once over the past two weeks.
So there is hope -- because we haven't even gotten the convention bounce yet.
The investigation centers on whether the employee in Feith's office passed secrets about Bush administration policy toward Iran to the main pro-Israeli lobbying group in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which then allegedly gave them to the Israeli government, one official said.
If accurate, the guilty parties should be executed for spying during wartime. If involved, AIPAC needs to be closed down. And the foreign aid budget for Israel needs to be zeroed out -- and diplomatic relations downgraded.
We will not stand for such activity from a putative ally which survives on the largesse of the US taxpayer.
"I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said.
2) Three defend citations for the Silver Star -- each issued by a different authority, with a different description of the events.
Maj. Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Vietnam veteran, calls the issuance of three citations for the same medal "bizarre." Milavic hosts Milinet, an Internet forum popular with the military community that is intended "to provide a forum in military/political affairs."
Normally in the case of a lost citation, Milavec points out, the awardee simply asked for a copy to be sent to him from his service personnel records office where it remains on file. "I have never heard of multi-citations from three different people for the same medal award," he said. Nor has Burkett: "It is even stranger to have three different descriptions of the awardee's conduct in the citations for the same award."
2) Two different certificates for his Bronze Star -- again, with different narratives and issued by different authorities.
So far, there are also two varying citations for Kerry's Bronze Star, one by Zumwalt and the other by Lehman as secretary of the Navy, both posted on johnkerry.com.
3) Kerry's DD215 authorizes four combat stars for his Vietnam Service Medal -- despite serving in only two of the eligible campaigns.
Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.
However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."
Lipscomb also points out another interesting anomaly, one that I have wondered about since I posted about Kerry's potential UCMJ problems on Monday. Did John Kerry complete his Naval Reserve obligation? Noting that the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs has discovered that only six of 100 pages from Kerry's personnel file have been released to the public, Lipscomb asks why Kerry was not discharged from the Naval Reserve until 1978, even though his obligation should have been up on June 30, 1972. George W. Bush completed his Air National Guard obligation on time and was honorably discharged, but Kerry's was delayed for SIX YEARS! Did KERRY make his drills, or was he AWOL? Was there some other issue? Given the scrutiny of Bush's service, doesn't Kerry deserve equal scrutiny? What is in those 94 pages?
The Burkett quote at the end of the article sums it up well.
"The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."
UPDATE: The guys at QandO blogged on this same topic and point up this little gem from National Review, dealing to Adm. Boorda's suicide after discovering he had inappropriately been wearing an unauthorized combat V. Senator Kerry apparently gave a couple of interviews on the matter.
Veterans said yesterday that although they would take offense at someone falsely wearing a "V" combat pin, they couldn't see how this could drive Navy Adm. Jeremy Michael Boorda to suicide.
“Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood,” said Sen. John Kerry, a Navy combat veteran who served in Vietnam.
“The military is a rigorous culture that places a high premium on battlefield accomplishment,” said Sen. John F. Kerry, who received numerous decorations, including a Bronze Star with a "V" pin, as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam.
“In a sense, there's nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought,” Kerry said.
“If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.”
Of Boorda and his apparent violation, Kerry said: “When you are the chief of them all, it has to weigh even more heavily.”
Owens argues that the charges of atrocities are unsubstantiated and contradictory. He makes a special point of documenting that the tales that Kerry repeated from the Winter Soldier hearings were never substantiated, and that
When the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview those who allegedly had witnessed atrocities, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those who did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans.This is documented in Guenter Lewy's seminal book, America in Vietnam, as is the failure of a similar Army investigation to produce any actual evidence of such atrocities. Similarly, Owens points out that the accusations of widespread war crimes are patently untrue.
And it was, after all, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese who turned hamlets into battlefields. The Communist practice of 'clutching the people to their breast' was a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits a combatant from using the civilian population as a shield: 'The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.' And while the Hague Convention IV (1907) prohibits the attack or bombardment of inhabited areas that are not defended, it is the general practice of states to treat a town occupied by a military enemy as a defended place, subject to attack.In short, the very tactics of the Communists in violation of international law created a situation in which the tactics used were within the scope of international law!
That the official U.S. position was to avoid indiscriminate attacks on civilians is indicated by a 1966 directive from the U.S. military command: "Firing on localities which are undefended and without military significance, is a war crime." Clearly, the U.S. command attempted to abide by the principle of discrimination, but the method of fighting employed by the enemy made discrimination difficult in practice.
He also points out the contradictions inherent in the position Kerry took in 1971 and that he takes now. In 1971, the American soldier was a creature of whom Americans should be afraid,
a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence. . .; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.Today those soldiers is one of a band of brothers who nobly fought for America, men of whom we should be proud. The two positions cannot be reconciled, but Kerry seeks to hold to both.
And let me add a note on the hypocritical irony of Kerry and his defenders. John Kerry's defenders are always quick to point out that Kerry had a right to protest the war. Owens notes that the Swift Boat Heroes don't disagree with that point, but rather with Kerry's words and his methods. But today it is that Kerry himself who will not concede that same right to his comrades -- unless they support him. Dissent appears to be a one way street for the Left, as usual.
Here's hoping I can make up for lost time!
Well, the parole was revoked after board members followed state law and met with Dixon's parents, as requird by state law. A hearty "Well Done" to them.
Unfortunately, they granted Riley a short date for the next parole hearing -- meaning that he gets another chance for parole from his life entence next year. Which also means that Dixon's parents will again have to go before the board to oppose letting this scumbag out of prison early.
No word on what action will be taken to shorten the sentence of life without her father given to Dixon's daughter, who was born after his murder.
And Riley, I know you and your wife come nosing around here from time to time, as I DO check to see where visitors come from. If you REALLY have something to say that would present your side of the story, feel free to do it here -- if you have the guts to do so.
Today was the deadline for the Bible's removal.
The Word of God gets a temporary reprieve.
ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
Now according to this document on Kerry's own website, Kerry was promoted to Lieutenant on January 1, 1970, and placed on inactive reserve status on January 3, 1970. He remained on that status until his transfer to the inactive Standby Reserve on July 1, 1972. Kerry was not discharged until February 16, 1978.
You may be asking how these two bits of information relate.
In April 1971, Kerry testified before the Senate that he met with representatives of the North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong in Paris in May 1970. They discussed diplomatic means of ending the war. Upon his return to the United States, Kerry then worked to implement the plans he discussed with these enemy representatives during time of armed conflict. Kerry also served as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War during this time, and the group sent several other delegations to meet with the enemy leadership. Kerry himself did so during the summer of 1971.
Thus it would seem that Kerry committed a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- and that the statute of limitations is still running on this. That may be why the Kerry campaign twice glosses over the period after his transfer to inactive status, here making it appear that he was out of the Navy completely and here skipping over the thirty months by making it appear there was a break in his service. But the official document referenced above tells the true story about his service, and points out this glaring problem.
I guess this raises a couple of questions in my mind. Should George W. Bush formally issue John Kerry a pardon for this offense? Or will Kerry pardon himself if he becomes president? Does this constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" for impeachment purposes? Or should Kerry be recalled to active duty, prosecuted and either imprisoned or executed under this provision of the UCMJ?
A big "thank you" to AmericanThinker.com for this one.
According to Heinz,
"Un-American traits are things like voter suppression, lying about people and their records.... It's been happening in American politics for years; it's not just Bush-Cheney, but they are a big part of it...
Apparently he doesn't include multiple voting, dead voting, military vote suppression, and lying about the president's National Guard service to be unAmerican -- since these are all Democrat tactics. He even has the audacity to complain about the amount of money spent by th Bush campaign, despite the free access of Kerry surrogates to the Soros fortune.
And then, having complained about falsehoods about people and their records, Heinz said
"They have misled the American people on the economy and on the war, and someone has to point that out."Which is, of course, a bald-faced lie about the Bush record.
But what REALLY rankles them?
"And I think what happened in Florida, with the vote count, what Bush and his supporters did there, was un-American, from beginning to end," Heinz said.And so the big lie about the GOP, the President, and the Florida election continues -- but that isn't unAmerican, since only Republicans can be unAmerican, if you live in a Heinz Kerry sort of world.
"Anytime a party [Democrats] gets 90 percent of the vote, the other party didn't show up to compete, and there is no way you can win if you don't compete," said Daniels, a Democrat who turned Republican about two years ago and co-leader of the state's Republican convention delegation.
Daniels is often mentioned as a potential Pataki successor. I think he sounds like a keeper to me.
Kerry said that "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . ."
Kerry described such incidents as "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with a full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Such conduct, he testified, reflected "the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do" and was "accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam."
He went on
"The Army says they never leave their wounded," Kerry said. "The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun . . . ."
Such comments clearly demonstrate why so many veterans hold Kerry in contempt. He slimed them, making them out to be monsters. And he claimed to be a witness to attrocities that he could never have witnessed during his three-hour cruise. . .er. . . four-month abbreviated tour of duty. Kerry built his career upon falsehoods which left "the real stuff of their reputations bleaching . . . in the sun . . . ."
And check back with Andersen next week -- he promises more on the subject, from men in a position to know what ground combat was really like in Vietnam.
A devout Christian working at MIT claims co-workers wore phony clerical collars, called him Jesus and blasted the Rolling Stones' ``Sympathy for the Devil'' during a 15-year campaign of harassment and ridicule against him. In a discrimination lawsuit pending in federal court, machinist Mark A. Peterson contends supervisors at the school's Lincoln Lab in Lexington joined the harassment, "openly telling jokes about God" and refusing to reprimand workers who spit in his coffee and left a noose on his workbench.
Now think about it -- what would happen to an emplyee who came to work wearing a turban or a burqa to harrass a Muslim employee? If a Hindu employee were refurred to as "Hare Krishna" in the workplace? And I don's need to guess about the noose, given that we had firings here in Harris County over one left in the locker of a black man.
But that isn't all.
"Employees and/or supervisors at MIT Lincoln Lab have harassed Peterson because of his religious beliefs (Christian), including assaulting him with a chemical, vandalizing and stealing his property, tampering with the machines he was working on and making verbal threats," the suit says
Furthermore, Peterson was forbidden to bring his Bible to work with him, a restriction which violates federal law.
Somehow I doubt that liberals are going to flock to this man's cause. And where are the prominent Massachusetts exponents of tolerance on this one?
The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us by calling and emailing your representatives in Congress to let them know that the majority of Americans oppose more irresponsible tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest sliver of Americans.
At least that is what a post on the Democratic Party Women’s Vote Center says.
Seems she has decided to require voters to "connect the arrow" rather than simply using a standard "fill the circle" technique that most Americans are familiar with. This could be a real problem, because
"People do the crazier things when they're asked to connect the arrows," said Stephen Ansolabehere, a former director of the Voting Technology Project, a collaboration between CalTech and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
I guess they are already prepping for Kerry's post-defeat strategy.
“No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them.”
Oh, really? What about Bill Clinton’s memoir, which contradicts his sworn testimony about Monica Lewinsky? And does that standard apply to films as well? If so, shouldn’t the campaign have tried to prevent theaters from running Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which is filled with lies?
So come on, John, let the denunciations begin!
"What kind of message does it send to students if a teacher loses his job because he's gay?" he asked.
I'll answer -- it sends the message that the Church really believes what it teaches about the sacrament of marriage.
And while Neff disclaims any intent of suing, that is belied by the (rejected) complaint he fired with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing . That indicates a propensity to take legal action here. Don't be surprised to hear that one activist group or another is filing suit on his behalf.
Religious institutions ought to be free to set their employment standards based upon religious criteria -- and that should not be limited by any statute, given the broad language of the First Amendment. I remember teaching at a Catholic school a few years ago and having language in my contract insisting that any marriage I enter be canonically valid, on pain of immediate termination. Conduct that caused scandal was also cause for dismissal. Seems to me that this guy crossed that line.
And as a religion teacher, he should know that.
But the thief died in a drowning accident in the Rio Grande. Garcia's family was notified that, based upon the wallet, Omar was dead. They claimed the body and buried it on Thursday -- only to be called by their loved one on Saturday.
And now the family is mad -- at the US. For its trouble, they want financial restitution for the funeral expenses. And to have US authorities pick up the body and get it to the right family. Oh, yes, and legal status that will put him on the path to citizenship.
Family members at first said they planned to sue Texas authorities for negligence, but backed off that claim Monday evening. They said instead they'd prefer for Garcia to avoid deportation back to Mexico.
"The only thing I want is that they leave my son alone so that he can work," said Garcia's father, Omar. "I ask that they put his papers in order."
I've got a better deal for you. We'll ship your son back to you at your expense, waive criminal charges against him, and place him and the rest of the family on the immigration watch list so that you can never enter the US legally.
And then we seal our southern border with the troops being redeployed from Europe and Asia..
Now comes the Kerrey with brains, the one who is the real war hero -- former Senator Bob Kerrey. Rather than fulminate and hit his opponents with brown books full of smears, Kerrey actually lays out a case why John Kerry is fit for the office of commander in chief. I don't particularly agree with him, based upon the reasons I outlined above, but he does make some legitimate points. And rather than demand that the opposition be silenced, Bob Kerrey acknowledges that the ads are legal and no different in kind or quality from those of left-leaning 527 groups. And he is willing to let the American people decide for themselves what is accurate and relevant (though he does slip in a call for more speech regulation under the guise of campaign finance "reform").
That is what John Kerry should have done. If he had nothing to hide and a substantive record to run upon. That the Kerry campaign chose otherwise demonstrates that the candidate has something to hide and little (if anything) in the way of national security credentials to run upon.
I mean, let's be honest here -- his sexual orientation is irrelevant to most of us. Even those conservatives who support an amendment to ban gay marriage have, for the most part, no real objection to a homosexual in public office. What we have an objection to is any politician having a sexual relationship with a subordinate and making hiring/promotion decisions based upon that relationship, as McGreevey has apparently done. That is, ultimately, the reason that the governor announced his impending resignation.
A resignation of this sort contains the implicit recognition that an officeholder is too damaged to continue in office. McGreevey's delayed resignation leaves the people of New Jersey witha damaged, ineffective chief executive for three months, until November 15. On what basis, then, does McGreevey delay that resignation for over three months? The answer is POLITICS. If he resigns now, there will be a special election to fill the remainder of his term as governor. Polling data shows it likely that a Republican would win, which would also negatively impact the Kerry campaign in the state. And so McGreevey, who was the mastermind behind the illegal replacement of Bob Torricelli as senate candidate in the name of offering the people of New Jersey a "choice" wants to deny those same people any role in selecting their governor before the fall of 2005, leaving them with a governor who has never faced a statewide electorate for 14 months. That is simply wrong. Jim McGreevey must go now.
He begins with a lovely hypothetical, directed at the typical EC detractor.
Next time you hear some free spirit say she wants to rid us of the Electoral College take her outside, look skyward and try to spot a big jet flying high overhead. Traveling east or west - it makes no difference.
Have her close her eyes and imagine her favorite presidential candidate on board the plane napping or reading a fascinating article in Newsweek or maybe plugged into an iPod listening to the whining lyrics of John Cougar Mellencamp.
Tell her to gin up a good mental image of said candidate, because that's about as close as she'll get to that candidate, should the Electoral College close its doors.
Gardner then goes on to explain how the high concentration of voters in a relatively few counties and states, combined with the diffusion of voters throughout the rest of the US, would result in a continuous focus on the folks in the smaller area served by a few major media. Using the famous red/blue map from the 2000 election, he points out that the battle would be fought primarily in the few areas that were blue on the map, because they contain nearly as many voters as the rest of the country.
The genius of the Founding Fathers, he points out, was their design for a system which makes every state and region of the country important to the election of a president. As a nonresident of New York or Los Angeles, I'm not ready to cede my nation to those who live near an ocean. I like the fact that New Mexico Republicans can mess with liberals' heads with a pledge thing - as they did during Vice President Dick Cheney's recent visit to Rio Rancho - and make some noise nationwide. I like that Kerry and Edwards' train did more than whistle through the state.
Take away the Electoral College's ability to confer a presidential sheepskin, and that train blows through here faster than a tender moment between the Clintons.
Unfortunately, the contrast between the red and blue areas will intensify with the coming election. But that will further underscore the wisdom of the Electoral College.
It's a safeguard that ensures candidates can't take express trains through our state, on their way to bigger voting pools in Orange County or New York.
And as the resident of securely Republican Texas (near America's 4th largest city), I agree -- for I don't want my vote taken for granted, either.
What is particularly outrageous about this is that the Mexican government approved the policy back in 2001. My outrage is twofold. The first aspect is my outrage over a policy they asked for and approved. But the second part is the fact that we kowtowed to the Mexicans and allowed them any input on our border security issues when Mexico does next to noting to prevent the illegal incursions by its own citizens.
Living in a post-9/11 world, we have to recognize that border control is key to national security. The Houston Chronicle recently documented the failures of our border control/immigration policy, which has allowed some 400,000 illegal immigrants to disappear while on parole pending a status hearing. Many security experts expect the next group of terrorist attackers to have entered through Mexico -- probably posing as Mexicans, carrying fake birth certificates and real matricula consular cards.
So I don't care whether the Mexicans approve of our policy or not. We need to use real bullets. And if that means dead border crossers, that is too bad. It's a matter of national security.
From the Congressional Record, May 27, 1986 (page S3594):
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia…I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me....
And from a letter to the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979 (as documented in Unfit For Command, page 46):
I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.
Well, there were no US troops in Cambodia at the time, and Kerry's unit can be documented as being over 50 miles away from Cambodia at the time. Oh, yeah, and by the way, the president in December of 1968 was one Lyndon Baines Johnson, NOT Richard Milhous Nixon. So what appears seared into Senator Kerry's mind is apparently so much bullcrap.
Now his press folks say Kerry mis-spoke. I'd buy that once, but not twice, separated by years. Theyalso claim he has publicly corrected himself. My question is when, where, and how -- and why has he not revised and extended his Senate remarks to reflect that?
Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
So, let me get this straight. You and Bush both accepted the same flawed intelligence in the weeks and months leading up to the war. You both believed in WMDs (which may yet be found). You have since criticized Bush for taking us into the war based upon erroneous information -- but now you tell us you would have supported the war even if the evidence had clearly indicated there were NO WMDs?
Now Kerry did ask four questions of his own -- and I'll answer them for him.
1) Why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace?
Well, Senator, there was a plan for the peace. It involved returning civilian control to Iraq as soon as possible (accomplished back in June) and allowing for free elections for the first time in decades. It also involved reconstructing the infrastructure, an ongoing process that involves American companies like Haliburton. In this it is similar to the pattern followed in Germany, Italy and Japan following WWII.
2) Why he used faulty intelligence?
Obviously, Senator, the use of faulty intelligence was obviously not intended. The problem is that virtually every major intelligence service in the world had the same general picture. So we are not talking about a US intelligence failure, we are talking about an international intelligence failure. How could that happen? Either Saddam had a massive disinformation campaign going on, or he was lied to by his own people which in turn meant that good intelligence painted a false picture of Iraqi capabilities.
3) Why he misled Americans about how he would go to war?
Meaning what, exactly? He said we would forge an international coalition to enforce UN resolutions, and did exactly that. He said we would catch Saddam, and has succeeded.
4) Why he had not brought other countries to the table?
Uh, he did -- some 40 other countries. I realize that didn't include Russia, Germany, and France (the three biggest Iraqi trading partners, who violated UN sanctions against that country), but one can hardly claim that it was the US going it alone.
"We need a neighborhood watch kind of system so that we have a way to notify people, they know what they're supposed to do. We shouldn't have millions of Americans, or hundreds of thousands, trying to figure out at 3 o'clock in the morning what they are supposed to do. They ought to know what they're supposed to do," Edwards said.
"If you're going to be on the alert for terrorists, and these color codes are going to mean anything, then people ought to know what they're being called on to do. If we do that to protect ourselves against vandals or a burglary, why would we not do it to protect ourselves against a terrorist?" Kerry asked
Don't see it, do you. How about this -- THEY DON"T WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS. That's right. The Democrats seek to impose more and more limits on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In particular, they want to make sure that We the People do not have access to so-called "assault weapons." But exactly what sort of weapons would be most effective? High-powered automatic weapons of the kind used by police and military would be the most effective tools these trained citizens could have to prevent terrorist activity. But that won't ever happen, despite the fact that the maintenance of weapons for homeland defense was one of the two major purposes of the Second Amendment (the other being to enable the people to overthrow a government grown tyrannical, as happened in the American Revolution).
So what the proposal really comes down to is training Uncle Sid and Mrs. Garcia to communicate with the neighbors and call 911 if they see any terrorists around -- not to do anything that would really deter terrorism. That doesn't do anything to comfort me, near the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel, right down the street from the Bayport chemical plants.
In other words, Kerry and Edwards REALLY served up a big NOTHINGBURGER.
On August 3, a judge in Washington state decreed that the framers of that state's constitution included a right to homosexual marriage in the state constitution when they adopted the document in the nineteenth century. On the same day, voters in Missouri became the first to amend their state constitution to forbid homosexual marriage. That day made it clear that what we face -- the people oppose homosexual marriage (even when, as in Missouri, supporters of homosexual marriage outspent opponents by 40-1), but the judiciary seems intent upon contorting itself to find it in our laws and constitutions. What can be done about this disconnect.
President Bush supports an amendment to the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Kerry, feigning a belief in federalism, argues that the matter should be decided state-by-state. But given that the decision is coming from judges rather than the legislature or the people, that seems to beg the issue -- especially if a federal judge discerns the right in the US Constitution and a liberal Supreme Court stacked with Kerry appointees upholds the decision. After all, both Democrat nominees are on record against the Defense of Marriage Act (supposedly designed to allow for the states to make their own decision on homosexual marriage), and both have voted against amendment the US Constitution.
As a result, the issue of homosexual marriage must be one in this election. Why?
Events such as those last week in Missouri and Washington are making it less and less likely that Kerry, and the Democrats who cheered him in Boston, will get their wish. Kerry has made it clear that he and Edwards are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, so the debate will not be about the merits of this impending social change. Kerry, remember, has "no problem" with the Missouri vote. Yet everyone knows that, if left to themselves, judges like the ones in Massachusetts and Washington state will override the preferences of the 70 percent or so of Americans who likewise oppose same-sex marriage.
When it comes up in the fall campaign, as it certainly will, the issue will be what to do about this collision between democratic decision-making and judicial ambition. President Bush will have a clear answer: He will fight to preserve marriage, and his opponent will not. How does Bush know this? Kerry opposes changing the Constitution to preserve traditional marriage. He was one of 14 senators to vote against legislation to let states preserve it. And he is committed to appointing the kind of federal judges who created the problem in the first place.
That is the debate John Kerry can no longer avoid.
Or, put differently, it's about letting the will of the people or the will of the judges to prevail, and only President Bush is on the side of the people, when one cuts through all the Democrat dissembling.
There is at least one honest editorialist in the land. That soul works for the Bowling Green Daily News. I make this assertion because of an editorial which speaks the plain, unvarnished truth about the 9/11 report and the president. George W. Bush is owed an apology by a bunch of folks. What's more impressive, the editorial even names the names of some who need to start apologizing.
Who are the folks the editorial names?
And in a conclusion that reflects my opinion to the last jot and tittle, the editorial says:
What is most disturbing about this is that it wasn’t just our intelligence that said there were WMD in Iraq. British, French, Russian, Jordanian and Egyptian intelligence all said that Hussein possessed WMD.
Even the United Nations, hardly a supporter of the war, concluded that Hussein had WMD.
The bottom line is that this was an intelligence failure.
For political figures to blatantly deny the findings of the Sept. 11 commission and continue to throw false allegations about Bush is sad.
In essence Bush deserves an apology, but from the field of those throwing the punches, it doesn’t seem likely.
I'm not sure what to make of this situation. Kranish himself writes in his book on Kerry that the senator admits he shot a fleeing VietCong because he feared the man would turn around. Where would that means Kerry shot him? Unless my understanding of anatomy is totally flawed, he would have had to shot the guy in the back -- a possible war crime. And given his other admission of war crimes (blogged on here), I find the charges leveled against him plausible.
But in the end, it is his post-war actions that need closer examination. Go read about the Winter Soldier investigation. Go read the book Kerry wrote in 1971 but doesn't want you to read today, The New Soldier. And go read the transcript of the 1971 Dick Cavett interview/debate between Kerry and Swift Boat Hero John O'Neill. I won't even get into the use of Kerry's statements by the North Vietnamese as part of their torture of American POWs, or of their continued use for propaganda purposes by that Communist dictatorship today.
I just want to know when the press will look at these issues with the degree of seriousness they deserve.
The Bush administration has invited a team of international monitors to observe the U.S. presidential election in November, but the group will not come from the United Nations, as some congressional Democrats had urged.
< SNIP >
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the largest regional organization in the world with 55 participating nations, will monitor the U.S. election on Nov. 2. Members include Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain and the United States.
This is a disturbing development from the administration, desperately triangulating between the Congressional Black Caucus and the GOP base. Let's just say this member of the base is not happy, and as Election Judge I will not let these folks through the door at my polling place without a court order or the paperwork required by the Texas Election Code. I run a clean and honest polling place, but I will not prove it to a bunch of foreigners just to please the race-baiting socialists of the CBC and the Euro-trash of the OSCE.
Thomas is a scholar, writes fantastic opinions grounded in the Constitution and history, and is willing to challenge a precedent when it is wrong, even though it is old and venerated. After all, how many justices would be willing to say that Michael Newdow was right in his interpretation of SCOTUS jurisprudence on the Establishment Clause, but that the entire line of cases since Everson in 1947 had been wrongly decided and needed to be reexamined and overturned? Not one, for the rest voted to avoid the Pledge issue altogether.
A great man. We could, and have, done significantly worse.
And it would surely piss off the race-baiters and poverty-pimps of in the Democrat Party.
Welcome to the Party, Rodney.
And to all you whining liberals out there, I offer you two words -- Jim Jeffords.
Buth then they picked Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, who as head of the left-wing Clergy Leadership Network. In that position she ran a group that argued that Jesus supported higher taxes as the way of ensuring that society cares for the poor, gay marriage, abotion, and increased secularism in American society. Hardly mainstream beliefs in America's Christian community, whether right, center, or left.
Congratulations to the Catholic League for riding this one down, and pointing out the continuing links of the Democrats to anti-Catholicism.
According to Drudge, the book claims
# Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.
# All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.
# A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star.
# Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.
# Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.
# Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.
Now I cannot help but note that, beyond the questions of honesty and interpretation, at least one of these matters arguably constitutes a war crime. Given Kerry's later conduct, including his statements about war crimes in Vietnam, I find it very likely that the charge against the senator is true. He admits it in a 1971 debate with John O'Neill on the Dick Cavett show.
MR. CAVETT: Well, let's talk about that. Did you see war crimes committed and –
MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.
Speaking of his post-war activities, I stumbled across a site devoted to documenting the activities of Kerry and others involved in the famous Winter Soldier investigation. The notion that anyone involved in this could be elected to any office, especially the highest office in the nation, is appalling. It includes a link to John Kerry's infamous book, The New Soldier Better look at it quickly, because Kerry and his associates refuse to allow the book to be republished (used copies sell for over $500 -- and it is rumored that many of them are purchased for destruction), and regularly threatens legal action to knock sites off the web when they post this historical document that sheds such light on the character of the man who would be President.
In short, Kerry is clearly Unfit for Command.
Does an employer have the right to set workplace policies based upon his religion? That is an interesting question arising in a Florida case.
Lisa Morales was fired from her job with telecommunications company Rising Star for violating an unwritten policy and directives from her supervisors that pork and pork products not be eaten on the premises of the building, because the meat is "unclean" in the Islamic faith (Muslim halal rules are somewhat similar to Jewish kosher rules). She is now claiming religious discrimination, while Rising Star CEO Kujaatele Kweli indicates he is trying to accommodate all employees.
I don't have an easy answer to this one. May an employer ban conduct that he and many employees find religiously offensive? Or must he allow that conduct on the basis that it is permissible within another employees religion? And what of the very real problem of possible food contamination in a lunchroom, especially if in microwaves or on shared counter/table space? And to what degree is forbidding one type of food an illegal act of discrimination against some rather than an accommodation of others? Anyone want to give it a shot?
Unfortunately, the result was a completely different problem.
The scarecrows so closely resembled Ku Klux Klan garb that they sparked complaints from minority guards and visitors at a nearby prison.
Workers on Smith's farm made the scarecrows last week out of the white, hooded environmental suits they wear to spray the crops. Soon after, administrators at the J.B. Gates Correctional Institution began receiving complaints.
Smith has had to remove his scarecrow, apparently because of pressure from prison officials.
Personally, I would have left the thing up. But then again, maybe it's better to give in than being annoyed to death by morons.
God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush
When are the going to rein-in this out of control mouth? And when will the media make an issue of it as big as they would if Laura Bush were making such comments -- or as they made of the college drinking escapades of the Bush daughters?
And in a matter that will likely not be reported, apparently Kerry thugs roughed up Bush supporters at the rear of the Milwaukee rally. As the GOP-backers stood on a bridge holding signs, Kerry supporters tried to block them with signs of their own. A scuffle later broke out as the Kerry backers tried to knock Bush signs out of the hands of Bush supporters and into the water below. Teresa Kerry encourages such incivility by her demonization of anyone who opposes her or her husband. And those, I daresay, are "un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits" entering into this campaign.
"I'm not sure that this was the most appropriate time for Rusty to do this," he said. "Then again, there's probably not any most appropriate time."
I think my wife, The Loyal Opposition, has the best take on this matter -- "I'm surprised it's taken him so long. Does this mean he has a new woman to start pumping them out with?" I don't know that the is any way to do it under Texas law, but I almost hope the judge refuses to grant a divorce, to protect any woman and potential children from Rusty.
Apparently you are not permitted to disagree with Kay Staley -- at least not if you are a Christian. According to her, the estimated 40 letters, 50 phone calls and several e-mails she claims to have received are somehow unchristian because of their angry tone. I guess that she, indignant about a small memorial to Houston philanthropist William S. Mosher, is the only one allowed to become upset over something they find offensive.
Why is Staley upset? Because the memorial, erected outside the Harris County Civil Courts Building at the expense of Star of Hope Mission in 1956 and refurbished with private funds in 1995, contains a Bible. She wants that book banned from county property on the basis of the extra-constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. She also claims that she is discriminated against because the book doesn't represent her beliefs -- and that it also discriminates against the majority of Christians because the Bible doesn't represent their beliefs, either!
It sounds to me like US District Court Judge Sim Lake is looking at the right questions, as he has asked the attornies for both sides to brief him on the following issues.
•If the monument has both secular and religious purposes, does it pass constitutional muster by only showing that it has a secular purpose?
•Should he consider only the original purpose of the monument or the purpose it had since the monument was refurbished?
•Should he consider oral statements made at the dedication? This is a reference to religious statements made at the 1996 dedication.
•Should he consider the community understanding of the monument or only the described purpose of the monument?
Interestingly enough, I spent two weeks in that building last month when I did jury duty. My observation of it is that the monument is unobtrusive, standing about four feet high. It is rectangular, maybe 30 inches by 18 inches. Had I not known what it was there, I probably would not have noticed it. It clearly identifies both the donor and the honoree. I genuinely believe that if this monument is ordered away, that the eventual outcome will be the exclusion of any religious reference in any public place -- effectively establishing atheism as the official religion of the United States. It may be, as Justice Thomas indicated in the recent Pledge of Allegiance case, time to reexamine a half century or more of Establishment Clause jurisprudence on the basis of the unintended consequences of those decisions.
Yesterday he was sentenced to seven years probation, as well as the usual array of restrictions on registered sex offenders. Needless to say, his radio career is over.
What I find interesting is this bit at the end of the article.
"Those of you who have listened to my radio show and read my newspaper columns over the years know how strong a supporter I was of our criminal justice system. I can only say how misguided I was. Our criminal justice system is not based on justice; it is a quota system where conviction is the only scorecard," he said.
Matthews said he hopes one day to talk about the case.
That leaves me wondering if this was not a case of something being done unintentionally and being used by prosecutors to "get" a local gadfly. I just don't know.
But regardless, my concern is mostly with the young girl who has to live with this, and with her family. My she and they find whatever healing and closure they need.
"This is a cowardly act and targets all Iraqis," Abdul Hadi al-Daraji, spokesman for radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, told Al-Jazeera television.
unfortunately, this just contributes to the fear of the small Christian minority in Iraq.
"What are the Muslims doing? Does this mean that they want us out?" Brother Louis, a deacon at Our Lady of Salvation, asked as he cried outside the damaged Assyrian Catholic church. "Those people who commit these awful criminal acts have nothing to do with God. They will go to hell."
And not only will they go there, we have an obligation to help send them.
Powell is not, however, a target of the investigation. The subpoena is just one more sign that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is being thorough in his work. In other words, the president's pledge to have a full and complete investigation of the matter is being fulfilled, and there is no cover-up. What a refreshing change of pace from the type of obstruction we got from the previous occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Why? Because, by his own admission, Berger broke security rules and probably the law by his actions. This has to be investigated, to determine how and why this security breach took place. It is ultimately not about documents stuffed in socks or pants, as some sensational reports have indicated. This is about national security. Anyone seeking to spin this as a mere political scandal doesn't get the full implication of what went on.
Soon, God willing, five more will be coming home. They died in Greenland in 1962, when their P-2V Neptune sub-tracker crashed into a glacier. The remains of seven were recovered in 1966, but the other five have remained on the glacier to this day. At times the remains have been covered, at others the weather has made recovery attempts impossible.
The Atlantic Fleet Naval Air Force safety officer, Capt. Tom Sparks, is leading a 16-member recovery team, accompanied by dogs trained to search for cadavers. They are expected to be on the glacier for about a week and return to the United States around Aug. 15.
And God bless Bob Pettway, who has led a national letter writing campaign on behalf of the men and their families. He is kin to none of the men on that plane, just a Navy veteran who kept the memory alive. His efforts will surely be rewarded by a gracious God.