I am sure most of you remember Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian communist reporter and terrorist ass kisser that was kidnapped in Iraq and subsequently released, after Italy was rumored to have paid a large ransom. She was wounded and an Italian security man killed while trying to run an American roadblock near the Baghdad airport. She made some rather outrageous claims about what occurred. So outrageous, I dubbed my posts on the subject, 'Sgrena's Tales'. Now Jack Kelly has a few more things to say about Sgrena and her fantasy in his commentary.

"Sgrena left her hotel the morning of Feb. 4th to interview refugees from Fallujah, the resistance stronghold captured by U.S. Marines in November. The interviews didn't go well. "The refugees...Would not listen to me," she said. "I had in front of me the accurate confirmation of the analysis of what the Iraqi society had become as a result of the war and they would throw their truth in my face."

Sgrena's feelings were hurt that the refugees could be so curt to: "I who had risked everything, challenging the Italian government who didn't want journalists to reach Iraq and the Americans who don't want our work to be witnessed of what really became of that country with the war and notwithstanding that which they call elections." (Maybe it reads better in Italian, or maybe she just can't write worth a damn.) "

"Sgrena and the driver said they approached the checkpoint slowly. But "slowly" seems to be a relative term for Italian drivers, and for communists. An Army officer told ABC news the car may have been going 100 mph when it was fired upon.

Sgrena claims the Americans shot without warning. "A tank started to shoot at us without any sign or any light," she told reporters March 7th. The soldiers say they used lights, and hand signals, and fired warning shots before shooting into the engine block to stop the vehicle. The car's driver said the soldiers did shine a spotlight, but opened up almost immediately afterwards.

Sgrena said "the tank" fired 300-400 shots at her car. But photographs of it published March 8th by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica indicate the vehicle suffered remarkably little damage for such a fusillade. There is a single bullet hole in the windshield, but the window glass and the fenders are otherwise intact, as is the hood."

"But there is no doubt about the credibility of Giuliana Sgrena. She entitled her story "My Truth," perhaps to distinguish it from the bourgeois concept of truth that depends on adherence to fact. Many on the Left in America embraced Sgrena's "truth," while refusing to give their countrymen the benefit of the doubt.

But hey, liberals support our troops. They say so all the time."

Last year, I was honored and privileged to give a speech before a local veterans group. Here is my speech.

"Thank you, Commander.

Distinguished guests, my brothers and sisters in arms, families and friends, good morning. We meet here on this warm May morning, to pay homage to those that died to keep us free.

As I look out amongst you, I see few from my grandfather's generation, who fought in the 'War to end all Wars', WWI. Then I see my father's generation, the 'Greatest Generation', who saved the world from fascism by winning WWII and fought in Korea, the 'Forgotten War', to keep communism in check. This generation further fought the early part of the Cold War, by being ever vigilant and ready. There is my generation who fought in Viet Nam. The cause was just, you won every battle you were engaged in, including the Tet Offensive, which though billed as a loss by the media of the time, was in fact your greatest victory. You crushed the enemy to the point of despair. You did not fail, the politicians failed you. You also took the torch from our fathers and win the Cold War. Finally, I see my son's generation, the Xers. The ones some were concerned would not pick up the torch. They were wrong. This generation fought magnificently in the Gulf War and continues to fight on against terror. I salute each and every one of you.

To those here, that have lost their loved ones in defense of our Nation, I salute you as well, for your sacrifice and your steadfastness in these troubled times.

Today, our Nation is at war once again. While we cherish and pay homage to those that have died in past wars defending our freedoms and our way of life, young warriors are fighting and, sadly, dying to continue to preserve what we hold so dear.

The enemy we fight today, is the same as other enemies we have fought before. They want to destroy us and force their way of life upon us. They are different in their methods. They do not wish to engage our military in major battles, for they know they have no hope of defeating them. Instead, they seek to terrorize us. They target civilians and soft targets. They use people whom they have convinced will become martyrs by sacrificing themselves to kill innocents and our warriors. You WWII vets called them kamikazes.

They know that it is the United States that stands in their way to dominate the Middle East and then Europe and Asia. They try to cower us with their murders and other terror tactics. They do not know, nor do they understand the spirit of the American people. We will not be cowered, instead we rise with steel in our backbones to see that they are eradicated from the face of this planet.

As I speak to you this day, our young warriors are engaging this enemy in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places we do not hear of. This will not be a short or an easy war. We will have successes and we will have temporary failures. We will lose loved ones, both in the military and, tragically, civilians. Our enemy has no remorse in the killing of innocents. But we will see this through to final victory.

In closing, let me say it has been an honor and privilege to have served for twenty years to defend the most free Nation the world has ever known. I respectfully thank those who died to keep America free. I salute our warriors who continue to fight to keep us free. May God bless and keep them and their families. May God Bless the United States of America.


This speech was given by Sailor, SCPO, USN (ret.) before a local VFW."

Another Memorial Day approaches and it has dawned on me that little is said about those who sit and wait on the home front, worrying about their loved ones overseas. It is their sacrifice that is all too often over looked. The wife and mother, raising the kids, dealing with what some of us consider the mundane issues of day to day life, doing this all on her own. Making those every day decisions that most married couples make together.

Let us not forget the husband that is doing the same things, while his wife is overseas, defending her family. I know I would have been beside myself trying to do those things my former wife did whilst I was Globe trotting for Uncle Sam.

We also need to remember the anguish of those moms and dads, of which I am now one, worrying about their child who is now in the military defending us here at home. I am finding that my son is always in my thoughts, even though he is stationed Stateside for now.

It is even more distressing in this day and age of instant communication, to wait at home. I can only imagine the fears and, for lack of a better word, terror, that those watching the news or reading a newspaper must feel when they see or hear of the death or injuries of our troops in the war zone. The waiting for word must be absolutely terrifying.

We all need to take some time and consider those that are waiting on the homefront. If you know some one that is, take out some time to see what you can do to help them through their day. It is the very least we can do. Even some thing as simple as dropping off a dessert or offering to take care of their children, so they can have some alone time or even just go to a movie.

To those of you that are waiting at home, I apologize for not having said some thing sooner. I thank you for your unheralded sacrifices. You are truly the backbone of our military. - Sailor

AP is reporting that Chirac has stated that France has rejected the EU constitution. This will have serious ramifications for the EU. The Dutch are set to vote on Wednesday.

"PARIS (AP) - French voters rejected the European Union's first constitution Sunday, President Jacques Chirac said - a stinging repudiation of his leadership and the ambitious, decades-long effort to further unite the continent.

Chirac, who urged voters to approve the charter, announced the result in a short televised address. He said the process of ratifying the treaty would continue in other EU countries.

"France has expressed itself democratically," Chirac said. "It is your sovereign decision, and I take note."

Earlier, the Interior Ministry said that with about 83 percent of the votes counted, the referendum was rejected by 57.26 percent of voters. It was supported by 42.74 percent."

The British paper, The Sunday Times is reporting that Al Qaeda's head scumbag in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has run away after being severely injured in a US missile attack 3 weeks ago. According to the Times' source, Zarqawi suffered shrapnel wounds to his right shoulder and chest. The Times also is reporting that Zarqawi suffered from a very fever that necessitated his seeking nedical help at a hospital in Ramadi.

"LONDON (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had fled the country after being seriously injured in a U.S. missile attack, a British newspaper reported on Sunday, quoting a senior commander of the Iraqi insurgency.

Al-Zarqawi has shrapnel lodged in his chest and may have been moved to Iran, The Sunday Times newspaper reported, adding his supporters may try to move him on to another country for an operation.

The paper quoted an unnamed insurgency commander as saying the Jordanian-born militant was wounded three weeks ago when a U.S. missile hit his convoy near the northwestern Iraqi city of al Qaim.

"Shrapnel went in between the right shoulder and his chest, ripped it open and is still stuck there," the commander said, adding a second piece of shrapnel penetrated Zarqawi's chest but exited from his back.

"There was concern about spinal injuries," the commander said. "But his ability to move eliminated that fear.""

"Then, on Thursday, an Internet statement in al Qaeda's name said the group had named a deputy to fill in for Zarqawi, but a later statement attributed to the group spokesman swiftly denied it.

On the same day, Iraq's interior minister said he had confirmation Zarqawi had been wounded, but the country's prime minister later said there was no firm news.

Washington has offered a $25 million bounty for Zarqawi, its top foe in Iraq.

His group is blamed for many of the suicide bombings and ambushes by mostly Sunni Arab guerrillas, which have killed more than 600 Iraqis in the last four weeks and raised fears Iraq could slide toward civil war."

Many people have been touting the recent compromise int the Senate on filibustering judicial nominees as a victory for the dem/leftists. Those that believe this claim the dem/leftists can still filibuster nominees for "extraordanary circumstances". One would think, by listenting to these folks, that this agreement is cast in stone. It is not. The Constitutional option is still very much on the table. Senator Orin Hatch explains.

"On May 23, 2005, a group of 14 senators, seven Democrats and seven Republicans, issued a “Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations.” The Democrats’ part of the pact was pledging to vote for cloture on three named judicial nominees and to oppose filibusters of future judicial nominations except in undefined “extraordinary circumstances.” The Republicans’ contribution was pledging to oppose changing Senate rules or procedures regarding judicial filibusters during the current 109th Congress.

They announced this deal on the eve of a Senate vote that would have eliminated the judicial filibuster altogether. Four times during the 108th Congress, the Senate failed to invoke cloture, or end debate, on the appeals court nomination of Priscilla Owen. Had that happened again on May 24, 2005, Frist would have sought a ruling from the presiding officer that, after sufficient debate, the Senate should vote on a judicial nomination. I would have joined a majority of my fellow senators in voting to affirm that ruling, re-establishing Senate tradition and making the judicial filibuster a thing of the past.

Recently dubbed the constitutional option, this is a mechanism for changing Senate procedures—without changing Senate rules—that has been used, directly or indirectly, for nearly a century. The filibuster deal was struck, in part, so that the constitutional option would not, at least for now, be exercised.
The operative words here are “for now.” On its face at least, the deal fails to re-establish the Senate’s tradition of up-or-down votes for all judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor. Instead, it may effectively reduce the number of senators who can dictate which nominees receive floor votes to just the handful involved in this deal, since they can make or break the 60-vote threshold for invoking cloture, or ending debate, under Senate Rule XXII.

Loopholes in the Deal

Perhaps even worse, the deal does not even attempt to distinguish the “extraordinary circumstances” justifying future filibusters from the “extreme” standard Democrats say justified their past filibusters. Rather than confine the filibuster, this subjectivity creates loopholes large enough to drive a filibuster through."

Amnesty International is at it once again. This time they have compared the dentention center at Gitmo to a gulag. I suppose you have to expect this sort of nonsense from a group headed by William Schultz, a card carrying leftist and terrorist ass kisser from way back. You can read about Schultz's affiliations here. John Podhoretz takes issue with Amnesty's gulag comparison in his commentary.

"Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.

Number of prisoners in the Gulag: as many as 25 million, according to the peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.

Number of camps at Gitmo: 1

Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.

Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.

Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of airplanes.

Financial purpose of Gulag: Providing totalitarian economy with millions of slave laborers.

Financial purpose of Gitmo: None.

Seizure of Gulag prisoners: From apartments, homes, street corners inside the Soviet Union.

Seizure of Gitmo prisoners: From battlefield sites in Afghanistan in the midst of war."

"The people who work at Amnesty International surely know something of the history of the Gulag. After all, the group was founded in part to serve as a watchdog of Communist human-rights abuse. They surely know that even though they might consider the American camp at Guantanamo Bay a terrible violation of human rights, it is a speck on a speck of a mote of dust compared to the Everest of horror that was the Soviet Gulag.

On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe the people who work at Amnesty International really do think that the imprisonment of 600 certain or suspected terrorists is tantamount to the imprisonment of 25 million slaves.

The case of Amnesty International proves that well-meaning people can make morality their life's work and still be little more than moral idiots."

I do not know about you, but I for one am getting very sick and tired of these foreign elitists insulting the US. If it were not for this country, where would they be? I will let Victor Davis Hanson explain in his commentary, since he is far more eloquent than I will ever be.

"Not long ago Pepsi Cola’s chief operating officer, Indra Nooyi, gave an address to the graduating class at Columbia Business School. In it, she metaphorically likened America to the middle finger on the global hand.

Denunciations and anger arose from her use of the silly metaphor (e.g., “This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and, in particular, the United States.…However, if used inappropriately — just like the U.S. itself — the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I'm talking about… So remember, when you extend your arm to colleagues and peoples from other countries, make sure that you're giving a hand, not the finger.”)

Then came her employer’s obligatory explication that she really did not mean what she said. And soon her defenders claimed hypersensitive Americans could not take well-meaning admonishment."

"Former cricket-star-turned-Pakistani-politician Imran Khan in some ways jumpstarted the Newsweek-induced frenzy when in a May 6 press conference he demanded an apology for the alleged slight to the Koran. “This is what the U.S. is doing,” Khan boomed, “desecrating the Koran.” His mischaracterization, based on a lie, was then beamed across the Middle East — and, presto, Mr. Khan got the anti-American outburst he apparently wanted.

Khan may have made his fortune and name in the British tabloids as a cricket star and international playboy of the London salons, a lifestyle that had strong affinities with the West rather than the madrassas. But now he is back in Pakistan crafting a political career and catering to the Islamists, even though religious extremism is antithetical to what allowed him to succeed and prosper abroad."

"A final suggestion for these unhappy and privileged few: To end your obsessions with the pathologies of America and the West, find a way to create your own alternative sports, literature, corporations, soft drinks, and filmmaking in the non-West.

It is not that we Americans are mad at what you say. It is just that you have all become so hypocritical, then predictable, and now boring — you are all so boring."

For those of you that think this filibuster compromise will last, think again. I will go on the record right here and now and predict that it will not be all that ling before the dem/leftists find some reason to block a Bush judicial nominee. It will not make any difference if that nominee, as with the other nominees the dem/leftists have filibustered, hase the ABA Most qualified rating. As soon as NARAL or one of the other leftists groups tell Harry Reid no on a nominee, the filibustering will begin anew. Terence Samuel explains in his commentary why this deal will evaporate quickly.

"The deal was anomalous, because it made both sides vulnerable to capitulation and hypocrisy. It was not long before those charges were leveled. But maybe the easiest way to gauge whether this was a compromise with real costs is to note that both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Reverend James Dobson’s Focus on the Family decried the deal as a stinker and threatened to mobilize against it.

And it is those competing armies on the left and on the right that seem destined to run over this agreement like a semi over a caterpillar.

Add to that a clear sense that the GOP Senate leadership (which had the deal foisted on it) seems determined to blow it up at the earliest opportunity. After the agreement was reached, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist reminded everyone that he was not a part of the deal, and he reserved the right to resurrect the nuclear option at any point he feels necessary.

“I do not want to use the constitutional option, but bad faith and bad behavior during my tenure as majority leader will bring the Senate back to the point where all one hundred members will be asked to decide whether judicial nominees deserve a fair up-or-down vote.”

The deal itself may come up for an up-or-down vote before long."

It looks more and more as if the French voters are going to reject the EU Constitution. This would be a major blow to President Chirac ans his efforts to have France as the centerpiece of the EU. Philip Webster and Charles Bremner are reporting that Chirac has every intention of ignoring a no vote.

"“The decision before us goes far beyond traditional political divisions,” he said. The choice was “about your future and that of your children, of the future of France and the future of Europe. On Sunday, everyone will have a share of the destiny of France in its hands.”

He argued that the constitution would strengthen France’s influence in Europe and reinforce the French social model. Rejecting it would create “divisions and doubts” in Europe when “we need a political Europe capable of bringing about a genuine European power”.

But the latest poll showed the rejectionists’ support growing to 55 per cent — the 13th poll in succession to put the ‘no’ camp ahead. With two days of campaigning left, the French political establishment was left hoping for a Liverpool-style comeback.

Even as M Chirac prepared to deliver his appeal last night the recriminations within his centre-right UMP party had begun, and he was said by colleagues to have accepted that he had bungled by calling a referendum."

When Harry Reid was off whining about his perception of GOP sniping, he also complained that the economy was weak. Perhaps Harry has been too busy being obstructionist or thinking up new insults for republicans to have noticed the latest economic numbers. Lawrence Kudlow breaks some of the numbers down in his commentary.

"Actually, we are looking at non-inflationary prosperity for several more years to come. This is a good stock market scenario where the broad indices still look to be 20 to 25 percent undervalued. In policy terms the Fed has done its job by restraining inflation and President Bush’s supply-side tax cuts have reignited economic growth. The results are unmistakably positive."

As I posted earlier, Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, has been exonerated of charges of premeditated murder. This Article 32 hearinf should never have happemed, based on the initial investigation in the field, which found Pantano's actions justified. The Washington Times hase some comments in their editorial.

"There is little doubt Lt. Pantano made just such a decision on April 15, 2004, during one of the worst months of the Iraq insurgency. While raiding a house full of weapons south of Baghdad, Lt. Pantano and his men found two suspected terrorists who tried to flee in an SUV. Lt. Pantano shot out the vehicle's tires and forced the suspects to search for bombs and hidden compartments. Moments later, the suspects turned as if to rush Lt. Pantano and ignored his orders to stop. So he killed them. At a time when terrorists were blowing up American soldiers with improvised explosive devices and booby-trapping carcasses on the road, Lt. Pantano acted to protect his men. He didn't help his case by emptying two M-16 clips into the suspected terrorists and leaving a sign on their corpses bearing a Marine Corps slogan, reportedly to send a message. But the danger and uncertainty of the situation were clear. "We're parked in a kill box right now," Lt. Pantano recalled telling his squad. "It's a miracle that we're not all in a bag right now." "

"Lt. Pantano could have faced the death penalty. Yesterday's decision sends all the right signals to servicemen who feared that authorities back home might second-guess justifiable decisions in the battlefield. "Down at the unit level, there was never a question about Ilario's conduct and whether or not he did the right thing," the lieutenant's lawyer, Charles Gittins, told the Associated Press yesterday. "It was up in the higher echelons. The people removed from combat situations needed to put more trust in their officers rather than assuming they're guilty." Indeed.

Lt. Pantano will face administrative punishment for desecrating the corpses. We hope that he will return to his combat unit now that he has been cleared of criminal wrondoing."

Didn't take long for the dem/leftists to use the filibuster on a Bush nominee. They have had their opportunity to express their advice and consent. This excuse about not having some additional classified documents is a red herring. The dem/lestists are on a fishing expidition, hoping against hope that some how, some where, they can find some thing that would sink Bolton. After all of this time, they need to stop being obstructionists and get to doing the people's business.

"Republicans needed 60 votes to cut off the debate; they fell short by four, with a 56-42 breakdown.

The debate on Bolton's nomination will now likely resume next month after senators return from their weeklong holiday break.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had said he wanted a vote on the nomination before the weeklong Memorial Day holiday.

"It does disappoint me," Frist said after the vote. "It looks like we have, once again, another filibuster."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took issue with Frist's comment.

"This is the first filibuster of the year, and maybe the last. [I] hope so," the Nevada Democrat said."

I received an e-mail today from a group that will retire your flags that are ready for this. Please do take advantage of their free service. To Charles Taliaferro and the Kitchen Table Gang Trust, thank you for providing this timely and valuable service. - Sailor

THE KITCHEN TABLE GANG TRUST

http://e3.email.myway.com/msg_read.php?ArdSI=7b48862731888524fb40ab4a37d6bbbe"

NewxMax, from the AP, is reporting that the charges against Marine 2nd Lt. Illario Pantano have been dismissed. These charges should never have seen the light of day. The preliminary, in the field investigation, found that Pantano's actions were correct and justified. This is where this should have ended. Here is the article.

"Huck could have accepted Winn's recommendation, given some form of administrative punishment or gone ahead with a court-martial. He decided that Pantano should face no punishment for any of his actions.

"The best interests of 2nd Lt. Pantano and the government have been served by this process," the Marine Corps said in a statement.

Supporters of Pantano said troops should not be second-guessed for decisions made in fleeting seconds of combat. A North Carolina congressman had urged President Bush to intervene and dismiss charges."

"Pantano is now helping to train troops at Camp Lejeune, but his attorney said he hopes the decision will clear the way for the Marine to return to a combat unit.

"I think (the decision) demonstrates that Ilario acted honorably in combat and the suggestion that he didn't that tarnished his reputation was unjustified," Gittins said. "I'm pleased for Ilario and his family because the nightmare is over.""

Since I changed the format of my blog a couple of months ago, it is rare that I post an article in it's entirety. This is one of those rare occassions where I find myself at a loss for comments. First off, I agree entirelly with Tony Woodlief and his dream for Isaac. You see, my son Daniel, of whom I am extremely proud, is a member of the US Army. He is on his way to airborne, then Ranger schools. I want to give a huge hat tip to Missy4, for alerting my to this article. - Sailor

" May 17, 2005, 8:07 a.m.
A Father’s Dream
I can see it now…
By Tony Woodlief

Like many fathers, I find myself gazing at my sons and dreaming about what they will become. I have a vision for the most important parts — that they become strong, gentle husbands and fathers, servants and leaders, better men than me. But I wonder what they will do for a living, especially since we expect them to be out of the house by the time they are 21 18 16 12.

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but sometimes I think I can see in their mannerisms glimpses of their future professions. Take the newest addition to our home, William Isaac, a few months short of a year old. Some of you may scoff, but I think he is destined to be a sniper for the Navy SEALS.

I know, I know, we all imagine our sons will be NFL quarterbacks and our daughters nuclear physicists, and nobody ever envisions that his child will grow up to head the janitorial-services division of the local community college. But hear me out on this.

I have to begin by acknowledging that the thought of her son becoming a Navy SEAL sniper fills my wife’s heart with dread, as it probably would many mothers. She can’t understand why I would encourage fate by giving voice to such an idea. But I nurture my dream nonetheless. Let's face it, the number of people around the world in need of a match-grade round between the eyes is on the increase, and you and I aren’t up to the task. I’m proud to think of my son filling that niche in the job market.

Why do I think Isaac is headed for this profession, you ask? First, he’s a natural-born jumper, which is key if your future job requires you to occasionally bring silent death from the skies. We have a seat suspended from springs that we attach to a door sill, and he can spend an entire hour in it, hopping about like a frog, without, I might add, tangling the gear overhead. He’s still working on the silent part, but the boy's a natural parachutist.

An even better predictor is the fact that Isaac can hit the weak point in his diaper with amazing accuracy. As every parent knows, when babies get fatter, they create vulnerabilities in their undergarments. This child exploits them without mercy. If he can be that accurate with his butt, imagine what he'll be able to do with a .50 caliber M88 from 300 yards.

At first I thought the destruction was just coincidence. But once you've got a whole drawerful of onesies with permanent mustard-colored waist-high stains, you realize that either the Lord hates you, or you've got a natural marksman on your hands. Since I know Jesus loves me, that leaves Explanation B.

I've actually gone to change the boy after hearing one of the intestinally generated explosions that are his hallmark (explosions: another SEAL specialty!), only to find…an empty diaper. Somehow, he's able to fire a whole payload of poop over the rim of his diaper, and up his own back. The Defense Department pays, what, $2 billion for a Stealth bomber? I say this to our nation’s military leaders, with all due respect: you folks don’t know from Stealth bombing. I’ve got a Stealth bomber right here under my roof, and he only cost one dinner, half a bottle of wine, and nine months of misery to make.

It’s not easy raising a lean, mean, pooping machine. As an ESPN announcer might say, you cannot stop such a Hazmat disaster, you can only hope to contain it. Lately I've taken to stripping us both naked and getting in the shower after he makes mockery of his diaper. This has the dual-benefit of letting me enjoy his happy wiggles at being both naked and in a shower (he likes water — another trait of a good SEAL), while muting the distressed cries of my wife as she struggles in vain at the sink to scrub indelible stains from cotton.

I try to explain to her, just like making a cake entails breaking a few eggs, making a warrior means we're going to ruin a few sets of multicolored Gap baby clothes. And truth be told, most of the Gap line doesn’t suit my tastes anyway; their clothing makes the boy look like he was dressed by a band of juggling circus gypsies. Since most of the clothes come from her side of the family, this silver-lining argument tends to fall on unreceptive ears.

The final bit of proof I have about my son’s destiny can be found in his hand-to-hand combat skills. With the drool and the goofy grins Isaac may look like he’s destined to ride the short bus, but just put your face within striking distance of one of those chubby little grabby hands and you’ll find that he’s a ruthless master of pain. His specialty is the lip-pull. One second you’re making stupid baby talk to him, and the next he’s got your bottom lip stretched down over your chin. If you don’t retreat to a safe distance while you recover from that indignity, he’ll get you with a Chinese finger-through-the-brain-by-way-of-the-nostril kung-fu move he’s been practicing on his mother. I pity Osama bin Laden when my son finds him cowering in a Pakistani cave in 20 years.

The wife and me, we don’t see eye to eye on Isaac’s future. Though she is too kind to say so directly, I suspect she thinks my SEAL dream is farfetched. It's one of those tom-A-to/to-MAH-to things. Were I French, I might be inclined to say "vive la difference." But then, were I French, I probably couldn't have sired a son with such deadly skills in the first place.

— Tony Woodlief is president of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and he lives in Virginia with his wife and three sons. More of his writing can be found at http://www.tonywoodlief.com/."

We have all seen one poll or another in the MSM, saying the American people support the dem/leftist position on filibustering judicial nominees. Many claim that it is how the question is framed that showed the results the left leaning MSM wanted. Of course, the MSM, or any organization, that wants a specific answer to a poll, will try and get that answer by framing the question to lead the poll taker in that direction. Now, NewsMax, is reporting the results of a Gallup poll that shows 69% of Americans favor an up or down vote on judicial nominees.

"The bombshell survey found that 35 percent "want to see the filibuster rules changed so that those judicial nominees are subject to an up-or-down vote," Gallup said.

Thirty-four percent "want to see the filibuster rule preserved" but "would like to see the Senate have an up-or-down vote on those nominees."

Only 19 percent told Gallup that Democrats were right to filibuster judicial appointments, with 12 percent voicing no opinion."

NewsMax is reporting the Jeanine Pirro, Westchester County, NY's District Attorney will announce that she will not be seeking a fourth term. The reason put forth is that Pirro is or will be seeking "higher" Office. This has been taken to mean that Pirro will challenge Hillary Clinton in 2006. Pirro has an excellent track record of success in law enforcement and has been a frequent commentator on CNN and other news outlets.

"A frequent television commentator, Mrs. Pirro began her career in law enforcement as a prosecutor in Westchester more than 25 years ago, according to an online biography.

In 1978, she headed the county's first domestic violence unit, one of only four in the nation, and was later elected the first woman jurist to sit on the Westchester County Court bench.

Mrs. Pirro's High Technology Crimes unit has won plaudits nationwide for its work against pedophiles and child pornographers who use the Internet to prey on children.
"

Here we go again. Another member of the media, this time a union leader, is claiming the US Military is intentionally targeting journalists. Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley has made this ridiculous claim at a meeting in St. Louis on May 13. Mind you, she offered no evidence, no proof, she just shot off her mouth. Thomas Lipscomb provides some details in his article.

"A public statement by Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley is reviving questions about the intentional targeting of journalists in Iraq by the U.S. armed forces.

At a May 13 meeting in St. Louis, Foley said: "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.""

"At the Communications Workers of America, Candice Johnson said she could not provide any evidence for Foley's revival of the Eason Jordan charges. Linda Foley refused requests for an interview.

Retired Air Force General Thomas McInerney, a Fox News military consultant, was "frankly astonished."

"It may be legitimate to investigate whether there may or may not have been an incident in which U.S. troops have targeted journalists, but there is no question at this point that major media figures are targeting the men and women of the United States military in Iraq, repeatedly and with no evidence," he said."

Over the past few months, I have been posting on what inroads the GOP has or has not been making into what has been considered the dem/leftist base. Recently, I posted on how the GOP has been reaching out to the black community. Now it is time to look at the under 30 voters. Since the Vietnam era, the under 30 vote has been considered to be solidly dem/leftist. Attitudes and political leanings change over time. Vahe Tazian explains the changing demographics in his article.

"The trend of young voters becoming more conservative has, to some degree, been overlooked. The general assumption, as Dean incorrectly claimed, is that young voters are typically liberal. One reason this notion still exists is that the trend has been gradual. Starting in 1984, when Ronald Reagan transformed the image of the Republican party in the eyes of many youth, to the recent presidential election, the GOP has been slowly, but impressively, increasing its appeal among young voters.

The rise in more young voters leaning conservative is not a coincidence. A constructive, issue-oriented debate has long been lacking in the Democratic Party. Simultaneously, Republicans have proposed new ideas and offered better solutions to various problems.

In his re-election campaign and early in his second term, Bush has outlined issues that are of vital importance to young voters, namely, reform of the Social Security system, an affordable college education and the creation of well-paying jobs.

Ideas do matter. If Dean is to resurrect the party, he may want to start by reassessing his claim to being "the party for young Americans.""

According to a report in the Boston Globe, Joh Kerry has finally signed SF-180 on 20 May. This may sneak under the radar with all the focus on the deal over judicial filibustering. As always with Kerry, there is still some confusion over exactly what will be released and when. Joan Vennochi explains.

"AT THIS POINT it comes as no surprise. John Kerry is releasing all his military records -- but then again, he isn't.

During an interview yesterday with Globe editorial writers and columnists, the former Democratic presidential nominee was asked if had signed Form SF 180, authorizing the Department of Defense to grant access to all his military records.

''I have signed it," Kerry said. Then, he added that his staff was ''still going through it" and ''very, very shortly, you will have a chance to see it.""

"The devil is usually in the details. With Kerry, it's also in the dodges and digressions. After the interview, Kerry's communications director, David Wade, was asked to clarify when Kerry signed SF 180 and when public access would be granted. Kerry drifted over to join the conversation, immediately raising the confusion level. He did not answer the question of when he signed the form or when the entire record will be made public.

Several e-mails later, Wade conveyed the following information: On Friday, May 20, Kerry obtained a copy of Form 180 and signed it. ''The next step is to send it to the Navy, which will happen in the next few days. The Navy will then send out the records," e-mailed Wade. Kerry first said he would sign Form 180 when pressed by Tim Russert during a Jan. 30 appearance on ''Meet the Press.""

"The campaign waged against him by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth arouses Kerry's greatest passion. ''What they said was untrue," he said. He considered, but decided against, filing suit against the group, which alleged that he did not deserve his Vietnam military honors.

Kerry insists ''The truth in its entirety will come out . . . the truth will come out."

Signing Form 180 is the first step. Releasing his entire military record to the public is the second.

It doesn't get any plainer than that."

For those of you who still believe there is no MSM bias, you really do need to get your head out of the sand. Newsweek in a follow up to their Koran toilet flushing lie, has now gone taken another big step on it's America bashing crusade. In one of it's foreign edtions, Newsweek claims America is dead and blames Bush. Here is the full excerpt from FrontPage Magazine's War Blog. It isn't a pretty picture.

"NEWSWEEK: "THE DAY AMERICA DIED"!

If you thought Newsweek’s phony Koran-in-a-commode story was bad, hold onto your hat. Riding Sun shows us what Newsweek is doing overseas, and you won’t believe it.

Or maybe you will.

Newsweek: America is dead.

UPDATE at 5/22/05 2:38:02 pm:
Note that the cover for the equivalent American edition of this issue was a feature on the Academy Awards titled, “Oscar Confidential.”

UPDATE at 5/22/05 3:10:13 pm:

LGF reader rickadams translates the cover text:

The red text at the left just above the “Newsweek” logo says:
“America forsaken.”

The big white and yellow text says:
“The Day America Died — The ideal of ‘freedom’ falls to the ground due to Bush continuing in office.”

UPDATE at 5/22/05 4:44:35 pm:
Aaron’s Rantblog answers."

The Minuteman Project was an unqualified succees, much to the chagrin of the ACLU, dem/leftists, supporters of illeligal immigration, Vincente Fox and assorted others. Congress has acknowleged the success of the Minitemen in their report on illegal immigration. This article by Jerry Seper gives the some of the details of this Congressional report.

"The deployment of 36,000 National Guard troops or state militia on the U.S.-Mexico border would stop the illegal flow of foreigners into America, says a congressional report that credits the Minuteman Project with proving that additional manpower could "dramatically reduce if not virtually eliminate" illegal immigration.

The 33-page report, written by investigators for the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, said the Minutemen — who shut down a 23-mile stretch of the Arizona border last month — served as a model for a government effort to reclaim the southern border of the United States."

"It said the agency's uniformed leadership should be pointed in a "new direction" as it is in "total denial of the magnitude of the disaster" and — as currently organized, staffed and supported — "cannot be relied upon" to remedy the situation soon.

"The Border Patrol needs new direction from the Department of Homeland Security if it is to shake off the lethargy from years of undermanned frustration," the report said. "The patrol needs to empower its outstanding field officers to act as necessary to accomplish the patrol's mission ... to energize its leadership to think outside the box."

The report said Congress and the states could sustain the success of the Minuteman Project — whose members were lightly armed, had no arrest powers, were not paid and traveled to Arizona at their own expense — with the deployment of National Guard troops or state militia working in coordination with the Border Patrol."

" The report also noted that Border Patrol supervisors said the Minutemen had little or no effect on illegal immigration, attributing apparent decreases during the vigil to increased enforcement efforts by the agency, along with the increased presence of Mexican military and police south of the border.

"However, nearly every individual Border Patrol officer who spoke off-the-record in the field to the Caucus team said that illegal immigration virtually stopped in the sector patrolled by the Minutemen as a direct result of Minutemen activity and publicity," the report said.

"The individual officers were highly appreciative of the impact the Minutemen made in the area, had good working relations with the project unofficially and felt the project had made a valuable contribution to the cause of the rank-and-file officer — protecting the border against impossible logistical challenges," it said.

Despite contrary claims by the supervisors, the report said, illegal immigration dropped significantly in the areas east and west of Naco, Ariz., targeted by the Minutemen. It said the decline "put to rest the historic immigration reform myth that it is impossible to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border with any reasonable amount of additional manpower.""

Hugo Chavez is the prototypical, two-bit, tin horn dictator. Jimmy Carter, not withstanding, the last election in Venezuela was about as fixed as they come. Of course, don't tell Jimmy that, there has not been a despot in years that Jimmy has not embraced. He and his group had no clue what was going on in that election. But, that is another matter. Chavez is going to become a major problem in South America and very soon. He has a great amount of oil money to use as he sees fit and what he sses fit is to purchase as many wepons as he can. His alliance with Castro should have been the bell ringrer. Investor's Business Daily looks into Chavez and his lengthing shadow over South and Central America.

"The contradictions mean something ominous: There's a bully stalking the hemisphere, and his shadow is lengthening. The region's weakened states have well-founded fear of being Chavez's next target. He can cut off their oil. He can crush their economies. In the past two years, he's done it on a hair trigger.

He did it to Colombia this year, shutting down border trade in a dispute over the apprehension of a terrorist. Before that, he did it to the Dominican Republic, cutting off oil in a fit of pique over an asylum case. Indirectly (at the very least), he's supporting Bolivia's coca-growing roadblockers who are trying to starve Bolivian cities into submission to their demands for investment-killing taxes. That's economic warfare.

Now he's telling Caribbean and Central American states that if they hope to buy a drop of Venezuelan oil, they'll go through Castro's Cuba. He has announced a new scheme to put Venezuela's Caribbean oil operational headquarters in Havana.

"Castro does have useful purposes for Chavez. Whatever the true level of Chavez's popularity, he's a nervous leader, cocooned by security, alarmed by the unprecedented corruption around him and raving about enemy encirclement.

He's so afraid of potential rebellions that some observers believe his real game is to set up a safe place in Havana for Venezuela's biggest money centers — oil and banking. That in turn would keep cash within his access. No people-power revolution can reach this money in Havana.

So, if there's a revolt in the restive oil fields of western Venezuela or in Caracas, money will still be accessible to Chavez's political machine, far from the hands of his democratic opponents.

Venezuelan cash in Havana also props up Castro. Ironically, this oil alliance will likely serve to entrench both leaders. That in turn will free them to take up more predatory practices around the region. A long shadow of tyranny over the Americas looks to be lengthening."

Tuesday looks like the day that the confrontation over judicial filibustering comes to a head, barring any compromise that might be worked out. I have posted here last week, that the Republicans should not compromise. They are the majority party, because the American people elected more Republicans to the Senate. That be said, it is time that the Senate got to the people's business and had an up or down vote on all judicial nominees. This is about more then Justice Owens, it is the set up for all future judicial nominees, including those to the Supreme Court. The Washington Times explains in their editorial.

"During 2003 and 2004, in an unprecedented, systematic use of the tactic, Democrats wielded the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to stop, to deny up-or-down votes for 10 nominees to the increasingly powerful U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Republicans' majority during the 108th Congress, narrow though it was, nonetheless was sufficiently united to guarantee the confirmation of each of those nominees in an up-or-down vote that was denied them.

In the 2004 election, Republicans increased their majority in the current 109th Congress to 55 members. With 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, however, that is still not enough to overcome a united front by the Democrats, who have pledged to use the filibuster as relentlessly in the 109th as they did in the 108th. There is no doubt the Democrats would use the tactic for a Supreme Court nominee."

"The final trend worth considering involves the results of the last several elections. Democrats haven't won the White House since 1996. The last time Democrats emerged from national elections with a majority in the Senate was 1992. On election night in all subsequent elections, Republicans achieved majority status in the Senate. Recall that the Democratic majority (June 2001-December 2002) occurred only after Mr. Jeffords left the Republican Party.

In its May 18 editorial, "Nuclear Disarmament," The Washington Post offered a recommendation to defuse the current battle over filibustering judicial nominees. As an alternative to the "nuclear option," The Post said the Republicans "could advocate rules that would guarantee swift committee hearings and up-or-down votes starting in 2009, when nobody knows which party will control the Senate or the White House." Reviewing the election results described above, we could not disagree more.

In this case, we agree with Chris Matthews of "Hardball": Democrats could solve the dilemma that the "nuclear option" poses for them by winning a few more elections."

Most of us know how influential Google is as pertains to any thing on the web. The large majority of people looking for information turn to Google to search web site for the information they are looking for. Google is in the process of applying for patents for ranking news sources on the web. This may bode poorly for the blogosphere. By ranking news sources, many blogs may find their ranked very low, if at all. Enter Roger Simon and two others. They are in the process of setting up Pajamas Media. Pejman Yousefzadeh explains in his article.

"We've recently learned that Google News is seeking technology patents to rank stories on its news site "based on the quality of the news source." Naturally, this has caused concern among bloggers that their sites will be ranked lower -- or perhaps not ranked at all -- by Google News, but as blogger Jeff Goldstein notes, this decision by Google will open up a niche for Blogospheric aggregators like Pajamas Media.
What is Pajamas Media? Well, as co-founder Roger Simon explains, Pajamas Media has a twofold purpose. The first is to give bloggers access to more advertising revenue -- in addition to what many bloggers are receiving from Henry Copeland's BlogAds. The second is to develop a Blog News Network that will do what many bloggers fear Google will no longer do; aggregate blog posts on various topics and present them for bloggers and blog readers to peruse and search through.

My blog is signed up with Pajamas Media, so needless to say I wish the enterprise all the success in the world. But apart from any self-centered desires on my part, it seems to me that the development of Pajamas Media and its various operations -- as well as Google News's possible decision to no longer carry blogs as part of its news outlets -- might be a blessing in disguise."

"As for the issue of an aggregating system, there is no disputing the fact that Google News is both extremely influential and exceedingly well-financed. Anyone who seeks to compete with Google News would find the task daunting, to say the least. But as Roger Simon pointed out in our discussion, Pajamas Media's Blog News Network need not compete with Google News. Rather, in the most extreme case, Google News can establish itself in the niche of aggregating Big Media stories while the Blog News Network can establish its own niche in aggregating blog posts. Each aggregator can work off of and profit from the efforts of the other. To employ a gaming metaphor, this is not a chess match between Google News and the Blog News Network where one side seeks to destroy the other. Rather, it is a Go contest where each side seeks a sphere of influence and where "winning" means letting one's opponent (insofar as Google News and the nascent Blog News Network actually are opponents of one another) profit from its own sphere of influence while one profits from one's own sphere and winnings. One side will come out ahead in the end, but any such victory is not achieved through a zero-sum arrangement."

A while back, I posted a couple of items on how the GOP was courting the Black community. I mentioned how it would be interesting to see how this plays out. Last week, there was a fund raiser in Harrisburg, Pa. The MSM did not think much of it, since there was barely a mention. Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and some other dems have taken notice of this event. Donald Lambro explains why in his article.

"The GOP chairman rarely, if ever, attends fund-raisers for local elected officials this far down the political totem pole, but this event was an unusual case that sent new fears rippling through Democratic ranks.

The candidate is Otto Banks, a 33-year-old African-American and the biggest vote-getter in Harrisburg, a predominantly black and overwhelmingly Democratic city where a Republican hasn't been elected to the city council in nearly 20 years.
Like everyone else on the all-black city council, Mr. Banks was a Democrat -- that is, until this March when he announced he had become disenchanted and was joining the Republicans.

But there was much more going on here than just another local official making a party switch. Mr. Banks, an articulate Pennsylvania State University graduate, is a political star whose desertion was supported by some other city council Democrats.

Two of Mr. Banks' council colleagues stood with him when he held a news conference to announce his switch. Their unspoken message: We're not ready to join him, but we support what he's doing and why he's doing it."

" "There's been a huge ripple" in the Democratic Party as a result of his switch, Mr. Banks told me. The reaction has been particularly favorable within his community. "More and more people of color are starting to take a second look at the Republican Party."

Mr. Banks, who now calls himself a "progressive Republican," voted for John Kerry in 2004, but after the campaign "took some time off and really started to do some soul-searching. I realized that many of the ownership and economic opportunity issues I stood behind were actually part of the president's program."
He is, for example, for school choice programs. He likes the idea of workers investing some payroll contributions and building a nest egg they can own and leave to their families.

Most troubling, he said, is how Democrats have treated their party's most loyal constituency. "The Democrats have definitely taken their African-American base for granted," he said. "We have lost our influence in the Democratic Party and by losing that, we have lost our ability to influence policies in our community.""

My good friend, Doc Farmer, has a few comments on the latest Star Wars entry. Seems those leftisits in Hollywood have decided to make some camparisons of the Sith and Dubya. Of course, they are disparaging. Even moveon.com is going to air ads comparing the Republicans to the Sith over judicial filibustering. I suppose that is better than those Nazi ads they thought about. - Sailor

George W. Bush - President, Commander in Chief, Sith Lord?
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, May 18, 2005


I'm a sci-fi fan from WAY back. I still watch original Star Treks and find enjoyment there, although NexGen, DS9 and Voyager were excellent follow-ups (I'll have to get back to you on Enterprise, though). I watch Stargate SG-1 and love the way they can make fun of themselves. I watch Tripping the Rift because, well, there just aren't enough buxom, horny, well-constructed 3-D cartoon sex androids on TV these days, in my humble opinion.

I also love Star Wars.

Haven't heard of it? Haven't seen it? Gee, you sound just like my boss!

For those of you who have NEVER heard of Star Wars, let me give you a quick thumbnail sketch. It's about good versus evil. Yup, that about sums it up. It's all of the heroic swashbuckling you could want, with none of the Errol Flynn (sorry, folks, but that cheesy grin of his always bugged me). It has lasers, starships, comedic robots, love, hate, courage, strength - all the things today's moviegoers
demand with their popcorn.

Now, why am I bothering you with any of this? I know at least two of the readers of this article (my Mom and my Dad) don't really give a rat's rump about sci-fi movies (example - having to explain Pon Farr to my own mother - talk about embarrassing!). Besides, this is usually a column about political issues, media mishaps, my planned takeover of the universe, and other trivial matters. So why is this a hot topic for me today? Is it because the movie is released on Thursday? Is it because I'm still waiting for my collectors’ item lightsabres to come in the post? Is it because I want all of my female coworkers to staple cinnamon buns to their ears? (note: you have to see the original Star Wars movie to get that particular joke).

Nope. It is because there are a number of the Hollyweird set who are trying to compare the new Star Wars movie, Revenge of the Sith, to
the current republican administration.

We've all heard it before in one form or another. Dubya wants to be a dictator. No, wait, he IS a dictator! No, wait, Cheney's really running stuff, and Dubya's just a figurehead. No, wait, Dubya's an evil genius bent on world domination. No, wait, [fill in next lame-assed lib/dem/soc/commie excuse for losing again here]. However, now that there's a great movie coming out that the whole world will see, and that pits good against evil (something lib/dem/soc/commies don't acknowledge because they don't believe in stuff like that), it seems as good a time as any to try and lie to the general public again.

After all, it didn't work with Fahrenheit 9/11. It's just gotta work this time.

Here's the deal. In the movie, an ambitious senator maneuvers his way to the top job by secretly arranging a war. The
senator, now Supreme Chancellor, is actually a very evil person (hmmm, must be a (bleep)ing lawyer in his spare time) who is bent on destroying the peaceful Republic and create an Empire, through media manipulation, a trumped-up war, and selling himself to the galaxy as a good guy.

Through Hollyweird's twisted vision, this is their interpretation of the Bush Administration. The lib/dem/soc/commies are the ones who want to retain peace and order and Social Security, while the evil rep/cons are planning to throw your granny out of her house and make her live in a dumpster. Oh, and take over the universe as well.

Now, I know full well that movies, especially in the sci-fi genre, can and have been used as political commentary in the past. A lot of what made the original Star Trek so groundbreaking wasn't that it was all warp drive and phasers. It took contemporary issues of the day and put them into a different (future)
perspective. However, for that to actually work, the issues must be designed in to the script. Frank Gorshen, with half of his body painted white and the other half black, was able to pull this kind of stuff off only because the writers used the contemporary issue of racism to make a blatant, and yet to the censors, anyway) covert statement.

That's not the case with this movie, however. George Lucas himself said that the original backdrop for the Star Wars saga was not the current issue, but the end of the Vietnam War. Although considering that Nixon actually got us OUT of Indochina instead of IN seems to be the part that everybody forgets, especially Hollyweird. Still, the wacko conspiracy theorists over at DemocraticUnderground.com (or, as I like to refer to them, DumbassesUnlimited.com) are picking the storyline apart looking for hidden Dubya clues. Considering these people believe that ''Where's Waldo'' is actually a CIA internal
spying process, I don't know why anybody even bothers to listen to them.

However, the MSM do. And they have a shared interest. Bush-hatred.

So, this is what the lib/dem/soc/commies have come to. Lie or manufacture stories about Dubya's alleged drug use. Question every policy, every motive, every action. Forge documents about his Air National Guard service. Call him stupid over and over again. And when NONE of that works, compare him to an evil wizard in a sci-fi movie. What's next? Will we see Harry Potter destroying Dubya in an upcoming movie, perhaps? Will Dr. Evil be usurped by this Galactic Country Bumpkin?

It's not just the movie itself that is generating this. The book based on the movie came out a few weeks ago. Naturally, I bought it. Hey, I just wanted to see if there were any surprises - I did not want to go into that theatre and hear the dulcet tones of Jar Jar Binks, after all. Sadly, however, I did find one surprise. Right before the
Introduction, there's a half a page of, well, preintroduction. The author, Matthew Stover, comes up with this little dig -

Though this all happened so long ago and so far away that words cannot describe the time or the distance, it is also happening right now. Right here.

It is happening as you read these words.

This is how twenty-five millennia come to a close. Corruption and treachery have crushed a thousand years of peace. This is not just the end of a republic; night is falling on civilization itself.

So, according to Mr. Stover, and an assortment of fruits, nuts and flakes that IS Hollyweird, we are currently in an age where all of civilization will be destroyed. Not by scumbags like Saddam, wackos like Kim Jong Il or just plain evil bastards like Usama. Nope. Dubya's gonna kill us all.

Y'know, I realize that movies like this are ALWAYS going to generate tons of hype. I heard on the radio today that Lucas ponied up $95 million for movie promotion alone! That's above and beyond however
many squillions he had to drop to actually make the movie. Moreover, everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon. Personally, I think the M&M ''dark side'' commercial is a hoot, although I'm getting a bit tired of seeing Darth Vader's mask on damn near every box of cereal ever made. However, when a bunch of petty, whining losers can take a movie that I was actually looking forward to seeing, and put a political spin on it, that's when I get a bit perturbed.

Oh, I'll still go see the movie. However, this does take some of the fun out of it. Which, I suppose, is the short definition of what lib/dem/soc/commies live for.


About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.


This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=14644

The media has had some problems of late. Plagarism, Dan Rather and those forgeies and now the Newsweek debacle. Newsweek offered and apology, then some very lame excuses. The old media seems to be circling the wagons in defense of Newsweek and the tin foil hat brigade on the far left is coming up with all sorts of conspiracies, claiming the Newsweek piece was true or that Newsweek was set up. Hugh Hewitt has some things to point out in his commentary.

"Terry Moran joined me for a three-part, on-air interview yesterday, the transcript of which is posted here. Moran's view of the world is interesting: including Moran's candor on the subject of hatred for Bush among a few "big fish" White House correspondents, the voting pattern of White House correspondents, the state of John Kerry's political future, the newsworthiness of Kerry's pledge--broken again--to release his SF 180, and the hostility of the media to the military in general and Newsweek's sins in particular.
But more than anything else, listeners and emailers reacted negatively to the arrogance that seeped from almost every answer Moran gave and to the press corps's hostility to the president and to the idea that the president's spokesman could legitimately call upon--not order, but urge--Newsweek to do more to reverse the damage done by their story. Here's one small bit of Moran's view of the world:

"I don't think the media should be immune from criticism. I think the elected leader of the United States has his or her hands full, and plenty of things for the elected leader of the United States to do. I think media criticism is a great thing. I think what you do is a great thing. I do not think it's a great thing for the president's spokesperson to begin instructing the media how to go about its business."

The White House press corps often calls on the president to comment on--and criticize--everything under the sun, from Enron to the Saudis to the Israelis to you name it. But Moran's demand for immunity from White House cajoling, and the undeniable air of superiority Moran and most White House press types project is damning evidence that the elite media have gone from purveyors of news to Guardians of Truth.

Moran really thinks that the press ought not to be criticized by the president or his spokesmen. In making his demand for a special status above that of every American, Moran at least gave honest voice to the elite media's view of itself: above every citizen, above every elected official, above, well, everything."

Over the last couple of weeks I have been posting on the current situation in the Senate re filibustering judicial nominees. I have posted that if the dem/leftists want to control the agenda on nominees, then they should get more dem/leftist elected. Elections have meaning. Over the last few elections, the American people have sent more republicans to the House and Senate. In 2002, the republicans took back control of the Senate, with a republican in the White House, something that had not happened since 1913. The Washington Times expands on this in their editorial.

"How many presidential and senatorial elections must Republicans win before the Democratic Party accepts the fact that elections have consequences?

George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000. Four years later, with the prospect of several Supreme Court nominations an issue in the campaign, Mr. Bush increased his vote total by nearly 25 percent, winning re-election by more than 3 million votes."

"Consider this reasonable scenario: In the event Chief Justice William Rehnquist retires after the court's current session, Mr. Bush would elevate a like-mined associate justice as the chief, and fill the vacancy on the court with a conservative. This would not change the ideological makeup of the court at all.

Nevertheless, it is inconceivable that Senate Democrats would resist the intense pressure exerted upon them by the abortion lobby and other left-wing interest groups. They would almost certainly declare that either one -- and probably both -- of the nominees, whoever they were, represented "extreme or extraordinary cases," triggering the filibuster. Under no circumstances should such an outrageous "compromise" be considered by any Republican."

The day may be finally upon us when Bill Frist finally pushes the button and puts an end to judicial filibusters. The left has been whining and gnashing their collective teeth for months now. You can be sure that some of them will be posting comments on how the voice of the minority is being squelched. This is utter bovine excrement. The minority had their chance to make their objections known, but what they really want is to control who is appointed to the Federal bench. As I have posted before, if they wish to do that, they need to become the majority party. A Washington Times editorial urges the confirmation of Judge Brown.

" In pursuit of the American dream, Justice Brown, who grew up as a daughter of sharecroppers in rural, segregated Alabama in the 1950s, worked her way through UCLA law school as a single mother. In 1998, as an unabashed conservative whose fair-minded integrity won her the editorial endorsements of California's two most powerful liberal newspapers (the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle), Justice Brown received more than 75 percent of the vote in her election to the California Supreme Court. That should put the lie to liberal assertions that she is outside the judicial mainstream. She has been embraced by the vast majority of the voters in one of the bluest of states.

From her position on the D.C. Circuit Court, for which a majority of senators would certainly confirm her in an up-or-down vote, the passionately conservative Brown would be an ideal Supreme Court nominee. That is why Democrats oppose her with such vitriol. With more than five decades of Horatio Alger accomplishments behind her, Janice Rogers Brown has earned the honor of being one of the two judges whom Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will use in his effort to overcome the Democrats' unprecedented, systematic filibuster campaign."

The fallout over the false Newsweek story continues. An editorial from OpininionJournal questions whether or not this was an honest mistake. The editorial looks into the recent history of journalists and the military. This makes for a very interesting read.

"Less reassuring, however, is the magazine's contention that the story is a routine error. "There was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here," said Michael Isikoff, who was one of two reporters behind the story. Certainly we all make mistakes. But if printing such an explosive allegation based on the memory of what a single, anonymous source claims he read is standard Newsweek procedure--no documents were even produced--its readers must wonder about the rest of its content too.

The more consequential question here, it seems to us, is why Newsweek was so ready to believe the story was true. The allegation after all repudiated explicit U.S. and Army policy to treat Muslim detainees with religious respect, including time to pray, honoring dietary preferences and access to the Koran. Yet the magazine readily printed a story suggesting that what our enemies claim about Guantanamo is essentially true. Why?"

"We aren't saying that reporters shouldn't be skeptical, and they certainly have a duty to report when a war is going badly. Where the press corps goes wrong is in always assuming the worst about military and government motives. Thus U.S. intelligence wasn't merely wrong about Saddam Hussein's WMD, it intentionally "lied" about it to sell an illegitimate war. Thus, too, an antiwar partisan named Joe Wilson with a basically unimportant story about uranium and Niger is hailed as a truth-telling whistle-blower. And reports from Seymour Hersh in late 2001 that the U.S was losing in Afghanistan set off a "quagmire" theme only days before the fall of the Taliban. The readiness of Newsweek to believe a thinly sourced allegation about the Koran at Guantanamo is part of the same mindset.

We have all been reading a great deal lately about both the decline of media credibility, and the decline of both TV news viewership and newspaper circulation. Any other industry looking at such trends would conclude that perhaps there is a connection. Certainly a press corps that wants readers to forgive its own mistakes might start by showing a little more respect and understanding for the men and women who risk their lives to defend the country."

Newsweek has retracted their story about US soldiers at Gitmo defaced the Koran by flushing it down toilets. Newsweek, of course, claims it's reporters did every thing by the numbers. Exactly what were those numbers? Let's see, first the site an "unnamed" source as the that genorated this information. The they proceeded to ask two other sources. Those sources did NOT confirm the story. The did not denyit, so I suppose that meant it was true in the minds of those reporters. What this is really about, is a rush to find anything that will make Bush or America look bad. It would strike me that on a story of this magnitude, due diligence would require at least one other confirming source and likely more then that. Newsweek can apologize all they want, but the damage has already been done by their irresponsible actions. Ben Johnson lists the fallout from this false story in his commentary.

"The May 9 issue of Newsweek vouchsafed that a new report issued by the Southern Command (“SouthCom,” which includes Guantanamo Bay) would reveal that, “in at least one case,” a Gitmo GI attempting to interrogate Muslims “flushed a holy book [Koran] down the toilet.” Leftist writer Michael Isikoff and partner John Barry cited an unnamed “senior U.S. government official” as the source for this tiny paragraph, oddly out of place with the larger story in which it was embedded. However, they did due diligence, Newsweek claims, by trying to verify the story with two subsequent officials who, respectively, gave no comment and did not specifically deny the charge. (The latter did not deny it, because he knew little about the report in question.) On the basis of one anonymous source, one “no comment,” and one non-denial from an uninformed source, Newsweek pressed forward with the damning release.

The trouble began when Pakistani opposition leader Imran Khan held a copy of the prevaricating Newsweek story high aloft during a press conference, thundering, “This is what the U.S. is doing, desecrating the Koran!” Others helped Khan spread the Newsweek scoop. “The American soldiers are known for disrespect to other religions. They do not take care of the sanctity of other religions,” chimed in Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the pro-Osama chief of Jamaat-e-Islami (“Party of Islam”), which calls for the “Islamization” of Pakistan."

" The Left’s journalistic jihad against the War on Terror inspired the deaths of 16 Muslims, the injury of at least 100 more, the destruction of numerous Western buildings, and untold hatred for U.S. troops stationed in the Arab world – with a lie.

The May 9 issue of Newsweek vouchsafed that a new report issued by the Southern Command (“SouthCom,” which includes Guantanamo Bay) would reveal that, “in at least one case,” a Gitmo GI attempting to interrogate Muslims “flushed a holy book [Koran] down the toilet.” Leftist writer Michael Isikoff and partner John Barry cited an unnamed “senior U.S. government official” as the source for this tiny paragraph, oddly out of place with the larger story in which it was embedded. However, they did due diligence, Newsweek claims, by trying to verify the story with two subsequent officials who, respectively, gave no comment and did not specifically deny the charge. (The latter did not deny it, because he knew little about the report in question.) On the basis of one anonymous source, one “no comment,” and one non-denial from an uninformed source, Newsweek pressed forward with the damning release.

The trouble began when Pakistani opposition leader Imran Khan held a copy of the prevaricating Newsweek story high aloft during a press conference, thundering, “This is what the U.S. is doing, desecrating the Koran!” Others helped Khan spread the Newsweek scoop. “The American soldiers are known for disrespect to other religions. They do not take care of the sanctity of other religions,” chimed in Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the pro-Osama chief of Jamaat-e-Islami (“Party of Islam”), which calls for the “Islamization” of Pakistan.

Soon riots had broken out throughout the Muslim world, from Malaysia to the Suez Canal, with violent crowds chanting “Death to America!” and burning American flags – and U.S. and UN government buildings. A Palestinian protestor stomping through the Jabalya refugee camp raging, “The Holy Koran was defiled by the dirtiest of hands, by American hands.” The strongest of uprisings took place in the Afghan mountain town and Taliban-stronghold of Jalalabad, with many demonstrations led by “remnants of the Taliban” (with its legendary tolerance for other faiths’ religious symbols).

All the while, the Left jeered knowingly. Howard Dean’s “Blog for America” [sic.] gloated over the revelations and the subsequent riots, inexplicably tying the fabricated infraction to Gen. Jerry Boykin.

In an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice issued a strongly worded statement attesting, “Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all.” Still, 16 Muslims died and more than 100 were injured before the media-inspired hatred came to an end.

And now the writers admit the story was false.

In the newest issue of Newsweek, which hits newsstands today, Editor Mark Whitaker and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas tell their readers the original source cannot remember where he read the allegation of flushing the word of Allah. This means he cannot verify it is in any government report. In fact, the glossy rag now questions whether the incident ever occurred. While not ruling it out conclusively (proving a negative is logically impossible), Whitaker told Reuters, “As to whether anything like this happened, we just don't know.” Whitaker tells his own readers, “We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.”

Thomas, however, writes a long story about the impact of his publication’s malfeasance entitled, “How a Fire Broke Out,” in which he all but pours gasoline on the raging fires of Islamist revulsion. Thomas justifies Newsweek’s coverage of the scantily sourced provocation on the grounds that similar reports had been issued – by released detainees and al-Jazeera Television. When weighed in that balance, this newest allegation “seemed shocking but not incredible.”

He then expresses shock this tiny story would touch off violence “[a]fter so many gruesome reports of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.” I mean, what’s the angry mob’s problem: don’t they read Newsweek? "

The time has come for hard ball. The dem/leftists continue their obstructionism of judicial nominees. It appears that Frist has the votes to eliminate the filibustering of judicial nominees and this will return the confirmation process back to the simply majority it should be. Of course there will be the whining and gnashing of teeth from the left and their allies in the MSM. No wherein the liberal MSM will you see mention of the fact that back in 1995, the dem/leftists, led by Byrd, Kennedy, Boxer, etal, wanted to do away with the filibuster all together. Even the New York Times was on board then. What a difference 10 years and a few elections make. Commentary at OpinionJournal delves into this matter.

"The judicial filibuster of the last two years marks another political escalation--this time twisting a procedure used historically for the most important legislative debates into an abuse of the Senate's advise-and-consent responsibility. Had their nominations been allowed to go to the floor, every one of the 10 men and women filibustered in the last two years would have been confirmed.

The audacity of the Democrats' radicalism is illustrated by the breadth of their claims against the nominees. It isn't just one nominee they object to; it's 10, and counting. It isn't just abortion they're worried about but the entire range of constitutional law.

Priscilla Owen is said to be a judicial "activist" for a decision interpreting Texas's law regarding parental notification of teens seeking abortions. Janice Rogers Brown is "against" affirmative action and speaks bluntly in public. Brett Kavanaugh is portrayed as a radical for defending executive privilege. William Pryor is hit on the First Amendment. Richard Griffin is "anti-union" and "anti-worker." William Myers is "hostile" to the environment. Every one is labeled an "extremist" and unacceptable no matter their experience or their "well qualified" ABA rating."

"This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something. Republicans have gained Senate seats in two consecutive elections in which judicial nominations were among the most important issues, including against the Senate Minority Leader. The one Democrat from a red state who won last year, Ken Salazar of Colorado, did so by promising to oppose judicial filibusters; he now seems to have changed his mind after sipping the Beltway's partisan punch.

Perhaps the coming showdown will lead to more political bitterness, but we doubt Democrats will be able to follow through on their pledge to shut down the Senate; the public wants other things done. And who knows? If Democrats can't succeed any longer in legislating through the courts, maybe they'll even return to trying to win power the old-fashioned way, through elections."

Looks like there was another reason that some Russians were so vehemnetly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Saddam had bribed them. I have to wonder how much, if any, of this type of activity will be found in the final Volker investigation report. Perhaps this is why the UN people are so upset over the Senate's probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal. The Senate is naming names. David R. Sands has more in his article.

"Sen. Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican spearheading the Senate probe, said the payoffs to former Russian Presidential Council head Alexander Voloshin and Liberal Democratic Party head Vladimir Zhirinovsky fit the pattern that Saddam used to undermine the U.N. sanctions by bribing high officials in key Security Council countries.

"This is the way Saddam Hussein used the oil-for-food program to line his own pockets and to curry favor abroad," Mr. Coleman said. "That's what the evidence clearly shows."

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on investigations, which Mr. Coleman chairs, will air the charges of influence peddling at a hearing tomorrow."

"Tariq Aziz, Saddam's former deputy prime minister, told the subcommittee how the influence-buying scheme worked in one instance.

In summer 2002, Mr. Aziz said, the threat of a Russian veto in the Security Council blocked a U.S. proposal to tighten border controls to strengthen the oil-for-food sanctions. Saddam told his oil ministry to "show gratitude" by increasing oil allocations to Russian interests and giving Russian companies contracts to sell food and humanitarian goods under the U.N. program.

In all, about 30 percent of Saddam's oil deals during the oil-for-food period went to Russian applicants, even though Russia is the world's second largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia."

For the last couple of weeks, the Clintonistas, including her highness, Hillary, have been out and about trying to revise history by blaming the Bush Administration for the North Korean nukes. The spin machine is in high gear, with the Clinton's willing accomplises in the liberal MSM, letting them get away with this revisionism. An editorial in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review spells out the facts.

"Instead of taking a hard line against North Korea's nuclear ambitions, President Clinton instead played the appeasement card: In exchange for U.S. aid, Kim Jong Il in 1994 agreed to stop nuclear weapons development. And what a deal, too: 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually, millions of dollars for food, and a nuclear reactor.

But there was no means of verification. An estimated 1 million North Koreans starved to death during the U.S. aid program.

Today Democrats suggest Mr. Clinton contained the threat. That's laughable. North Korea already has admitted that it went to work on nuclear weaponry shortly after the Clinton deal.

Now it's believed by some that North Korea has nuclear weapons and reportedly is moving forward with plans for a test. And, once again, some believe appeasement is the answer."

Looks like the dem/leftists, led by their big gun, Barbara Boxer, are going to stall all they can on the Bolton nomination. One report says they are even going to bring in Larry Flint to dig up dirt on Bolton. One can smell the desperation in the air. So what is Bolton's big sin? He might be too blunt for the crooks at the UN. Naturally, he also does not share the dem/leftist view of the UN. Mark Steyn gets into this in his commentary.

"Which brings me to the John Bolton nomination process, which is taking so long you'd think the U.S. Senate was run by Indonesian customs inspectors. Writing of near-Ambassador Bolton's difficulty getting his paperwork stamped by the Foreign Relations Committee, National Review's Cliff May observed that "the real debate is between those who think the U.N. needs reform -- and those who think the U.S. needs reform.''

Very true. Sen. George Voinovich, one of those "maverick Republicans" the press goes goo-goo over, seems to believe, as Cliff May puts it, "that the problem is more American 'unilateralism' than U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude."

On the face of it, this shouldn't be a difficult choice, even for as uncurious a squish as Voinovich. Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed."

"When rent-a-quote senators claim to be pro-U.N. or multilateralist, the tsunami operation is what they have in mind -- that when something bad happens the United States should commit to working through the approved transnational bureaucracies and throw even more "resources" at them, even though nothing will happen (Sri Lanka), millions will be stolen (Oil for Food), children will get raped (U.N. peacekeeping operations) and hundreds of thousands will die (Sudan).

John Bolton's sin is to have spoken the truth about the international system rather than the myths to which photo-oppers like the Canadian prime minister defer. As a consequence, he's being treated like a container of Western aid being processed by Indonesian customs. Customs Inspector Joe Biden and Junior Clerk Voinovich spent two months trying to come up with reasons why Bolton's paperwork is inadequate and demanding to know why he hasn't filled out his RU1-2. An RU1-2 is the official international bureaucrat's form reassuring the global community that he'll continue to peddle all the polite fictions, no matter how self-evidently risible they are. John Bolton isn't one, too. That's why we need him."

Harry Reid, the senior Senator from Nevada and Senate Minority Leader, seems to have a bad case of foot in mouth disease of late. First, at a high school where he was lecturing students on democracy, he calls the President a loser, a rather inappropriate comment for that setting. He did manage to apologize for that gaffee.

Yesterday, Harry departed from his prepared remarks to state that one of the President's judicial nominees had troubling information in his confidential FBI file. First off, how did Harry see this file? According to the rules governing these files, only the Committee and the nominee's home state Seantors may have access to them. There was a defense of sorts, claiming that a secret committee meeting was inadvertantly broadcast on the internet. Still, it is really desperate politics to make an insinuation that the nominee cannot defend on, espcially when the nominee does not have access to that file.

Just how desperate is Harry and the democrats that they have to resort to this type of character assasination? Harry full well knows that Frist has the votes to end judicial filibustering. Is this now the new plan from Reid and the democrats? To start smearing nominees they would have tried to filibuster in an attempt to sway public opinion to their view?

The judge in question, Henry Saad of Michigan, has impeccible credentials. Judge Saad will try and have the contents of this report released, though it is not certain that he can. Remember, Judge Saad has not seen this FBI report.

These recent gaffes by Harry Reid makes one wonder if the pressure of being Minority Leader has gotten to him. One groups has already filed a formal ethics complaint against Reid on this matter. Whether or not this will be investigated is unknown. But, what if this file is made public and there is nothing that would bring into question Judge Saad's fitness to be confirmed. Where does the Senate go from there? Na interesting question. And, what happens to Reid in this instance? - Sailor

SOURCE1 SOURCE2

The AP, via NewsMax, is reporting that the presiding officer, Maj. Mark E. Winn, of Illario Pantano's Article 32 hearing has made his recommendation. The paper work has been forwarded and Major Winn has recommended that the charges be dropped for lack of evidence. Those of us that supported Lt. Pantano, knew this all along. It is a damned shame that Pantano and his family had to go through this.

"The hearing officer has recommended that formal accusations of premeditated murder and other crimes against 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano be withdrawn, stating there is no evidence to support prosecution.

Huck will review the recommendation and decide how to continue in the case of Pantano.

[snip................]

Winn had been given a week after the close of the hearing April 30 to send his recommendation, but requested an extension.

"There's no timeframe for [Huck] to make a decision," Edwards said Friday. "He will carefully review the evidence and the investigating officer's recommendations before making a decision.""

A recently released Seanate report implicated two individuals in the UN Oil-For-Food scandal. Did you see any of that reported in the liberal, UN ass kissing media? Where are the dem/leftists and their outrage? They are too busy wringing their collective hands, worring that John Bolton might be too harsh at the UN. The Senate report names George Galloway of Great Britain and Charles Pasqua of France, who is a good pal of Jacques Chirac, as two who have allegedly profitted big time from being bribed by Saddam. Mona Charen explains in her commentary.

"In 2004, Galloway's name appeared on the list of 270 individuals, political parties and government officials who received valuable oil allocations from Saddam (and who took positions favorable to Saddam within their own governments and in the United Nations). Galloway has vociferously denied the bribery charges. But the Senate subcommittee, headed by Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman and fully backed by ranking Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, present new evidence that Galloway and a charity he founded were indeed profiteers in the Oil for Food Scandal.

Relying on information contained in the Duelfer Report, as well as documents from the Hussein-era Ministry of Oil, the subcommittee also interviewed key members of Saddam's regime, including Tariq Aziz and the former vice president of Iraq, Taha Yassin Ramadan.

According to these sources, Galloway received a total of six allocations totaling 20 million barrels of oil. When Galloway sold these allocations, he would stand to collect between 3 cents and 30 cents a barrel. I thought we were against "unfettered global capital.""

"The Senate Committee on Investigations has also pointed the finger at Charles Pasqua, former French minister of the interior (now senator) and close associate of Jacques Chirac. Pasqua argued passionately during the 1990s on behalf of lifting economic sanctions on Saddam's regime and declared that France had erred by siding with the allies in the 1991 Gulf War.

Where was U.N. oversight of all this graft? Why, in the hands of Kofi Annan, of course. Feel better? Democrats do. While one arm of the Senate was indicting Galloway and Pasqua (and by inference the United Nations itself), Democrats at the other end of the building were parading their disdain for John Bolton, whose great shortcoming appears to be insufficient adoration of the United Nations."

Much has been made about the MinuteMan Project. Most of it from the MSM negative. They have been called racists and other things. The ACLU was more worried about those coming into this country illegally then they were and are about American citizens. To hear the reporting, one would have the impression that those of Spanish heritage are all upset over the MinuteMen. That is not, however the truth of the matter. Of course, the MSM only prints the viewpoints goups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, which is an advocate of an open border. The San Diego Union-Tribune has an editorial on this issue.

"The truth is that the vast majority of U.S-born Latinos oppose illegal immigration and support calls for increased border enforcement. But you would never know it from listening to professional advocacy groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization. Or from the public comments and legislative priorities of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, made up of the 21 members of Congress who are of Hispanic descent. In fact, much of what they have had to say on the issue comes close to advocating an open border.

That's troubling. One, the idea of an open border isn't wise or workable, especially after Sept. 11, 2001. And two, what good are these groups if they don't represent the people they claim?"

"The volunteers won't get a warm welcome from Assemblywoman Lori Salda×a, D-San Diego, who recently helped organize a rally downtown of nearly 100 people condemning Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for praising the Minutemen. No fan of private patrols, Salda×a called for more funding for the U.S. Border Patrol and even launched a petition asking the governor to support "trained, professional law enforcement officers" as "the best way to provide a safe and secure border for everyone."

That stance put Salda×a at odds with Latino activists who have criticized the Border Patrol and who don't seem to be willing to support anything other than an open border. The activists are wrong, and Salda×a is right. What's more, she's not alone.

Just a few hours after the rally, National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia delivered the keynote address at a luncheon downtown honoring the Chicano Federation of San Diego County, a nonprofit community-based organization. Murguia said her group wants to ensure that immigrants in this country – including illegal immigrants – are treated with dignity but that it had no quarrel with the right of the United States to "decide who enters the country, and who doesn't" through both border and workplace enforcement efforts.

That is good to hear. And we can't help but think that one reason we're hearing it is because Latino leaders have glimpsed the alternative – lawn chairs and all – and they don't like what they see."

It is always re-assuring when some one else verifies some things I have posted here. The New Hampshire Union Leader has a Page 1 editorial on how primary voters will be watching the current obstructionism by the dem/leftists and how the republicans will respond.

The dem/leftists and their willing shills in the MSM, would have us believe that there has been little obstructionism on judicial nominees. They would also have us believe that using the filibuster is their duty unde the Advice and Consent in the Constitution. I have already posted on the latter. The Washington Times in their editorial, posts the fact and figures on using the filibuster as an obstruction tool.

"During the first complete two-year Congress of their presidencies, postwar presidents achieved the following confirmation rates for their circuit-court nominees: Truman (80th Congress; 3/3: 100 percent); Eisenhower (83rd; 12/13: 92.3 percent); Kennedy (87th; 17/22: 77.3 percent); Johnson (89th; 25/26: 96.2 percent); Nixon (91st; 20/23: 87 percent); Ford (94th; 9/11: 81.8 percent); Carter (95th: 12/12: 100 percent); Reagan (97th: 19/20; 95 percent); G.H.W. Bush (101st; 22/23: 95.7 percent); Clinton (103rd: 19/22: 86.4 percent); G.W. Bush (107th; 17/32: 53.1 percent).

Thus, for the first complete two-year Congresses of the 10 postwar presidencies preceding George W. Bush's, the circuit-court confirmation rate averaged 91.2 percent. For Mr. Bush, it was 53.1 percent. Moreover, before George W. Bush, no president's confirmation rate during his first complete Congress fell below 77 percent, which is nearly 50 percent (and 24 percentage points) higher than Mr. Bush's confirmation rate. It is also worth noting that the three nominees returned by Mr. Clinton's first Congress were confirmed during his second, effectively raising his first-Congress rate to 100 percent. And if we exclude Mr. Bush's two circuit-court nominees who were appointed to the federal judiciary by Mr. Clinton and nominated for the circuit-court bench by Mr. Bush as an unrequited, magnanimous gesture to the Democrats, then Mr. Bush's first-Congress confirmation rate falls to 50 percent (15/30), which is half Mr. Clinton's first-Congress effective rate.

Let's now aggregate the data for a president's first four-year term, while making minor, necessary adjustments (e.g., folding the 79th Congress into the first term of Truman, who succeeded Roosevelt in April 1945; using 1965-1968 as Johnson's first term; and ignoring Ford, who served less than 2.5 years). Then, the first-term confirmation rates are the following: Truman (10/11: 90.9 percent); Eisenhower (23/26: 88.5 percent); Kennedy/Johnson, 1961-1964 (24/29: 82.8 percent); Johnson, 1965-1968 (37/39: 94.9 percent); Nixon (38/41; 92.7 percent); Carter (56/61: 91.8 percent); Reagan (33/42: 78.6 percent); G.H.W. Bush (42/54: 77.8 percent); Clinton (30/42: 71.4 percent); G.W. Bush (35/66: 53 percent)."

Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is supposed to finally vote on the John Bolton nomination to be Ambassador to the UN. That is provided that the dem/lestists do not try and delay the vote. At this time, it would appear that the committee will approve the nomination on a party line vote. The dem/leftists and their media allies have tried to paint a picture of Bolton as a guy who needs anger management counseling. This has been their main thrust for opposing Bolton's nomination. Pejman Yousefzadeh wants to apply the Clinton standard for Bolton.

"In his memoirs, George Stephanopoulos revealed that President Clinton was subject to "purple rages" and that Stephanopoulos oftentimes felt that his job was to get yelled at by the President in the morning so that the President would not go through the entire day angry. Bob Woodward's The Agenda reveals that upon hearing of a staffer's mistake in preparing advance work during the 1992 presidential campaign, then-Governor Clinton remarked in a white-hot rage that "I want him [the staffer] dead, dead. I want him killed. I want him horsewhipped." When informed by then-Senator Bob Kerrey that Clinton would not have Kerrey's vote for the 1993 economic package, Clinton screamed into the phone "f--- you!" and then slammed it down. (Kerrey decided eventually to vote "aye" though it is not clear whether the President's anatomical expletive had anything to do with changing Kerrey's mind.)

To be sure, this habit of mindlessly raging at others is reprehensible from the standpoint of courtesy and respect for others. And to be sure, Bill Clinton was not the only politician to be guilty of failing to show this degree of courtesy and respect. Politicians -- whether Democrats or Republicans -- are notorious for their rather imperious behavior towards anyone they do not consider an equal (which encompasses a great many people)."

"One of the allegations against Bolton was made by former State Department official Carl Ford, who called Bolton a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy," meaning that Bolton would try to curry favor with his superiors while maltreating his subordinates. Interestingly enough, such allegations are concurrent with charges that Bolton "holds many strong views that diverge sharply from current U.S. policy." One cannot help but wonder how it is that Bolton supposedly "kisses-up" to his superiors while at the same time supposedly "diverg[ing] sharply" from official policy -- policy that is set by those superiors. Perhaps, as William Kristol indicates, the answer to this quandary is that John Bolton didn't "kiss-up" to anyone:

"John Bolton is no 'kiss-up.' Quite the contrary. Over the last four years, he was famously willing to challenge his bosses, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, at the daily 8:30 State Department senior staff meeting. He paid a price for this, especially by earning the enmity of Armitage. Carl Ford, the former State Department intelligence chief, was a close associate of Armitage."

Indeed, we have yet more indications that a primary charge against Bolton is that he went against consensus opinion regarding foreign policy and intelligence matters -- a stance that now apparently will be rewarded by having those with whom Bolton clashed over intelligence and policy matters come to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and testify with an axe to grind. Once again, all of this should cause people to wonder whether Bolton really "kissed-up" as successfully as Carl Ford alleged he did -- after all, it's a strange kind of "kissing-up" that entails having Bolton engage in policy arguments with so many people in the diplomatic and intelligence communities. Bolton's critics apparently have trouble getting their criticisms straight. Either Bolton's nomination should be disapproved because he is a "kiss-up" to his superiors or it should be disapproved because he is bull-headed and obdurate beyond measure in interactions with his superiors. These critics can pick one charge and run with it, but they can't have it both ways. And if they choose to portray Bolton as a "kiss-up" that charge is contradicted by the many times he argued against the opinions and policy stances of his superiors."

"This is not to say that the only complaints against Bolton revolve around his supposed "kiss-up, kick-down" behavior. Indeed, if there are policy and process issues of a more substantive nature that would directly impact Bolton's performance as ambassador to the United Nations, they should be pursued and discussed. Of course, they have been pursued and discussed during Bolton's confirmation hearings and there was every opportunity to pursue and discuss those issues during Bolton's previous four (successful) confirmation hearings for positions in the United States government. And yet somehow, only now, in this fifth confirmation hearing do negative allegations meant to deal John Bolton's nomination and career a death by a thousand cuts emerge. Readers will -- I hope -- forgive those of us who wonder cynically about both the timing of these allegations and their glaring inherent weaknesses."

It always amazes me how the rather plain language of the Constitution can be spun. At this point in time the Senate is in the process of trying to find some sort of compromise on the filibustering of judicial nominees. The dems/leftists cling to the filibuster as their way to obstruct Bush's nominees. Using the filibuster as part of the Senate's Advice and Consent constitutional responsibilities flies in the face of the Constitution. Michael Schwartz explains in his commentary.

"It is readily demonstrable – on “plain language” interpretive grounds – that the Constitution does not require anything more than a simple majority of the Senate to confirm the President’s nominee to the bench, and does not permit the Senate to impose any larger numeric requirement. Article II, which vests the “executive Power” in the President, also enumerates a number of those powers. There is a sentence in Paragraph 2, Section 2 of that Article that does two things: first, it empowers the President to make treaties “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”; and second, it empowers the President to nominate “Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States [which include lower-court federal judges] ...” and to appoint them “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” The appointment power is not qualified by a two-thirds proviso, as the treaty power is. Accordingly, under elementary principles of construction, where in the same sentence of the same paragraph of the same Section of the same Article, one clause requires a supermajority to concur, and another does not, the omission in the second sentence must be deliberate. In other words, the omission in the second sentence reflects the Framers’ determination that no more than a simple majority of Senators needs to “Consent” before the President is authorized to make the appointment.

Reading the Constitution in this fashion – which is not an artful, or creative, or “activist” interpretation, but Plain-Language Interpretation 101 – all that is constitutionally required is that the leadership hold a floor vote, any floor vote, that permits the Senate to express its view on the President’s nominee, and that a majority “consent.” No particular mechanism is constitutionally required; let it be a failed cloture vote, for all that it matters. The President should then make the appointment, and it’s on to buying robes and picking clerks.

Instead of pursuing this Constitutionally unassailable course, however, the Republican leadership has threatened the “nuclear option.” But the very premise of this option is that the Democrats are right in their reading of the sentence just parsed. In other words, the “nuclear option” assumes the correctness of the Democrats’ mistaken -- and truly activist -- misreading of Article II, as protecting the Senate’s power to impose a supermajority requirement that the Constitution itself demonstrably chose not to impose."

Could it be that a steak dinner will be the ruination of Hilary Clinton's presidential aspirations? The Feds have built a rather strong case against David Rosen, Hilary's senate race national finance chairman. The questions is willRosen roll over for the Clinton's, much like Sandy Berger did, or will he start cooperating with the Justice Department? Dick Morris has some opinions in his commentary. Say what you will about Morris, good or bad, but he does know how the Clintons operate.

"The New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported on a transcript of a Sept. 4, 2002, audiotape of a dinner between Rosen and Ted Kennedy in-law Raymond Reggie, who was wearing a wire. Most news accounts have left out the fact that Rosen implicated himself with each bite of steak.

On tape, the paper reported, Rosen "acknowledges that the gala probably cost far more to produce than he reported on federal campaign forms." Rosen says of the fund-raiser, "We woulda never done it if the guy [Peter Paul] said he spent $2 million. So now he's [Paul] saying he spent $2 million on an event that raised $1.4." Rosen goes on to agree that "he may have" spent the $2 million.

Reggie, whose sister is Ted Kennedy's wife, will get no more than five years in prison on bank-fraud convictions in return for cooperation and testimony at Rosen's trial.
"

"The feds also say Rosen directed one witness to "take thousands of dollars of line items" off a campaign report about the event's costs and told a "confidante" that there was "no way" he could accurately report the cost of the fund-raiser."

Asked about the "guinea pig" comment, Clinton lawyer David Kendall said: "It's no secret that counsel for Mr. Rosen" and the lawyers for the Clintons and for the Senate campaign committee were cooperating in their defense against Paul's civil lawsuit. What he does not say — and may have been the point of Rosen's remark — is that they might also be cooperating in his defense against criminal charges.

As long as any such arrangement helped Rosen and he had a realistic hope of acquittal, there was little chance he'd turn on the Clintons. But now, who knows?

On the tape, Rosen says he spoke to then-President Bill Clinton regularly — at least once a week — about the campaign fund-raising. What could the president have told him that the federal prosecutors would find interesting? We may find out."

I have been adamant in putting forth the notion that filibustering judical nominees, or any nominee for that matter, goes well beyond the Senate's advice and consent role. Essentially, what this does is give the minority the power to usurp the will of the majority and whilst doing that, the will of the people. The dem/leftists seem to forget that they are the minority party and have continued to lose ground in each election. What they could not accomplish at the polls, they are attempting to do with the filibuster, namely dictate to the majority. Star Parker has a few things to point out in her commentary.

It seems pretty clear to me that the point of the process of advice and consent in the Senate, which defines its review of the president's nominees, is to ensure that we have qualified candidates. It should not be about having senators insert personal political opinions regarding a nominee's views on particular subject matter.

By definition, because it is the responsibility of the president to nominate judges, and because the people of the nation democratically elect the president, it is only reasonable to expect the judges that get nominated to reflect the worldview of our president.

The American people, last November, elected a Republican president and a Republican Senate. If we don't believe that the American people know what they are doing when they go to the polls, our way of life is in bad shape. We have to assume that a Republican-dominated federal government reflects a conservatively oriented electorate. It is only logical to expect that judicial nominees will reflect this orientation and we can only conclude that this is the result of a healthy democracy. Procedural games that undermine this process reflect a sick democracy.

The Janice Rogers Brown nomination is a good case in point.

There is no conceivable argument that can be made that she is not an eminently qualified candidate for a seat on a federal court. She is an associate justice on the California Supreme Court and was re-elected to this position by a compelling 76 percent of the vote. Her background before this position is stellar, including stints as a law-school professor, legal-affairs secretary to then-California Gov. Pete Wilson, an associate justice on a California district court of appeals, and a practicing attorney.

On a personal note, Brown is a black woman who is a role model for both blacks as well as whites. Her life is proof that achievement in America is the result of character and hard work. She grew up in rural Alabama, the daughter of sharecroppers. As a single mother, she worked her way through Cal State and UCLA law school.

Global warming and cooling are natural phenomena. Mankind can neither cause or impede this, no matter how arrogantly mankind thinks so. Of there are those that will try and convince us all that it is man's activity that has brought on this alleged global warming. Global warming has become a wildly profitable cottage industry for many in the scientific community, gaiaists and assorted others. Jay Lehr looks in to the "adventures" of a couple of the assorted others and why it is utter nonsense.

But if your goal is to frighten the public into thinking humans are causing global warming with potentially catastrophic consequences, there is no shortage of melting glaciers to report upon. By some estimates, 160,000 glaciers exist on Earth. Only 63,000 have been inventoried, and only a few hundred have been studied in the detail described by Braithwaite.

For example, a favorite melting glacier of the global warming activists sits atop Mt. Kilimanjaro in northern Tanzania, near the equator. Satellites have been measuring temperatures near its summit for more than 25 years, finding no warming at all, yet the global warmers trot out Kilimanjaro as a poster child for their cause.

A scientific study published in Nature in November 2003 explained that deforestation of the mountain slopes -- not warming temperatures -- explains the melting. But the scaremongers don't particularly care why Kilimanjaro is melting, only that it is. Any other facts get in the way of their lobbying and fund-raising efforts.

In the Arctic Ocean, floating sea ice (as opposed to ice shelves, which generally remain attached to the glacier that produced them) covers on average 14 million to 16 million square kilometers in late winter and 7 million to 9 million square kilometers at the end of summer. In Antarctica, sea ice covers from 17 million to 20 million square kilometers in late winter; only about 3 million to 4 million square kilometers remains at the end of summer.

The seasonal sea ice cycle is a natural phenomenon that affects biological habitats and human activities alike. It's important that scientists study and understand the cycle, which is affected a lot more by the sun and the Earth's orbit around it than by human activities.

It's pretty easy, as the Minnesota duo will no doubt show us, to grab a few short-term observations of changes in sea ice or glaciers and allege catastrophic global warming is taking place. The facts are a lot less convenient, as facts often are ... but it's high time the scaremongers and their allies in the media face up to them.

Quiet, Congress at work

Congress is hard at work trying to find new ways to stiffle free political speech. It would seem that McCain-Feingold was not enough for someof them. Our First Amendment rights of free political speech are slowly being taken away from us, with the exception of the old media that is. McCain-Feingold was frauduently presented to the American people by the likes of George Soros. And on it goes as Congress looks into how to place even more restrictions of free political speech. Paul Jacobs explains in his commentary.

Further, Congress takes upon itself supposedly "tricky" issues like whether blogs should be regulated. Or churches.

Of course, money and speech — like water — are known to find their way. Thus, the congressional assaults on political speech can never cease, and Congress never rest. Which is why the high court actually encouraged Congress not to stop with McCain-Feingold, but to continually tinker with the election laws to drive out any "outside" or "unregulated" new money and speech that makes it through the current maze. That is the hard legislative work engaging the Senate as America enjoys another spring.

Last election, millionaires and billionaires were able to help a number of groups, known as 527s, raise issues and state their opinions. These rich folk, by making massive contributions, allowed organizations to purchase costly TV time. The meat of the new legislation is to prevent this speech from breaking out again. If the current bill passes, donations to 527s would be limited to $32,500 — not unlimited as in this past election. Gifts of $32,500 would thus be deemed pristine and patriotic, while spending one cent more would be corrupt and criminal.

The blogosphere is a growing area for campaigning and political discussion, but bloggers certainly don't threaten the re-election of incumbents in the way TV and radio ads do. Rest assured, however, that once they do "negatively" impact incumbents, Congress will be back for them. (Congress has a knack for this, as I often point out in my Common Sense e-letter.)

America has become a land in which committees and commissions in the nation's capital decide who can speak, when, where, and how much. Yet more control by self-interested political hacks is no solution at all, it's more of the problem. We need more speech, not less. We need more freedom, not less. We even need more money in politics, not less.

Money doesn't equal speech, you say? Tell that to your ad buyer and see how much TV time you get.

The campaign finance laws that have eviscerated the First Amendment are not without an official rationale. Our slippery politicians and their robed guardians in the courts justify the tyranny as a means to prevent undo influence from special interests. And, of course, the appearance of corruption in government. The reality is that our present campaign finance system hands control over political speech to the biggest, most corrupt special interest of all: career politicians in Congress.

DOES ANYONE get "Mother" tattooed on his bicep anymore? Just wondering. Mothers make so many sacrifices for their children that a little permanent ink seems like a small token of appreciation. Though we bet Mom would appreciate flowers and an "I love you" even more.

It is easy to remember the little things moms do, like baking birthday cakes, kissing boo boos, and reading bedtime stories. There are the bigger sacrifices too — like giving birth. Then there are things a mom does that non-mothers tend to forget, like waking up every two hours to nurse, putting on those pregnancy pounds, and choosing the minivan instead of the convertible she really wants.

When life throws you for a loop, Mom is the one you can run to for comfort. "Nobody loves me but my mother," B.B. King sang. He was so down, he also worried, "and she could be jivin' too." But she wasn't.

Moms are amazing when you think about it. They will do things for you that no one else would do. How many other people would undergo torture just to be able to hold you in their arms, then give up their careers to stay home and hang out with you?

And what kind of thanks do moms get for all this? A store-bought card and a 20 minute phone call once a year. They deserve more than that, don't they?

To all the mom's out there, stand up and take a bow! Without you, where would all of us kids be? A special hug and kisses to my BlogMom, indigo, without whom this blog would not exist. Thanks BlogMom! - Sailor

Looks like Tommy Daschle has finally figured out that the campaign finance reform he and his buddies on the left pushed so hard for is one of the things that defeated him. It was those eight liberal groups, funded in a big way by George Soros, that frauduently foisted campaign finance reform on all of us. Ryan Sager, who busted this fraud, has more to say in his commentary.

Such keen, if belated insight, seems to be what motivated former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle to pen a guest column for the inside-the-beltway political paper Roll Call last Tuesday, warning Democrats that the current round of regulation is a trap.



"This past autumn, special interest groups rushed to South Dakota to attack my record and question my values. Many of their advertisements were harshly negative in substance and tone, and they reflected little respect for fact or substance," Daschle writes of last year's election season, which turned him out of office. "At times like this, in anger and frustration, candidates may wish that Congress could and would outlaw such advertisements. After a season of swift boats, in South Dakota and elsewhere, that wish is powerful, and it is understandable."



Now, why Daschle thinks it's "understandable" that Congress should want to shut up people who criticize congressmen is puzzling, but that's a topic for another day. For now, let's just cue the scary music.

Daschle's attempt to cut a fine line between the current assault of 527s and the broader assault on free speech in 2002 leaves his credibility in tatters. Both parties signed onto McCain-Feingold because, at the time, each secretly believed it was getting one over on the other. Democrats held to an outdated notion that their party couldn't compete with the GOP at raising soft money (large, unregulated checks that the bill theoretically eliminated), and they miscalculated. Republicans knew they could raise circles around the Dems when it came to hard money (smaller, regulated checks that the bill left in tact), and they won the lottery. So, everyone was trying to "exploit it for their own partisan purposes," in Daschle's words. The Democrats were just incompetent exploiters.



But that certainly doesn't mean Daschle's wrong about the Republicans' motives. Republicans have poured fewer resources into 527s than have Democrats, assuming that the Federal Election Commission would regulate them into oblivion or that GOP majority in Congress would eventually intervene -- as it's doing now.

Here is an indepth study on how the media portrayed the economy under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It is a very damning report on media bias. You can see all the facts, figures and charts right here.Here is an exerpt from the report.

Mandel, author of “Rational Exuberance: Silencing the Enemies of Growth,” listed several variables – unemployment rate, inflation, consumer confidence, housing affordability and unemployment claims – as similar for both incumbents. Financial columnist and author James K. Glassman followed with a September 2 piece for Tech Central Station that agreed with Mandel’s assessment and added that Bush “was dealt an extremely miserable hand by his predecessor.” Glassman pointed out that the tech stock bubble was “deflating,” gross domestic product (GDP) and employment growth were slowing and the corporate scandals of Enron, WorldCom and others all occurred under Clinton. “And, then, of course, there was 9/11,” he added.
[.................]
Take a look at how ABC and NBC cover the same unemployment and job creation news on September 3, 2004. On ABC’s World News Tonight, Peter Jennings claimed the results didn’t live up to expectations. “The government said today that the economy added 144,000 jobs in August. That was better than the previous two months, when job growth essentially stalled. But it fell short of the 200,000 jobs per month that most economists consider the minimum for strong employment growth.”

Of course, Jennings didn’t mention that the report also included an adjustment of 73,000 in those “essentially stalled” months. The overall total of jobs reported that month was 217,000 – 17,000 higher than the number he had cited.

Compare that to NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. “Unemployment and job creation numbers for August came out today, something candidates for both political parties are watching very closely. Payrolls expanded by 144,000, that is a bit less than economists had forecast. But the numbers for June and July were revised upward. The unemployment rate ticked down 1/10 of a point to 5.4 percent.”

CBS Evening News employed a similar strategy to NBC with a June 4, 2004 story. The Department of Labor announced the good economic news that the unemployment rate stayed even at 5.6 percent in May. About 248,000 new jobs were created and earlier job growth numbers were revised upward. CBS Evening News delivered this news by focusing on an Ohio company that was laying off employees.

It is time for the dems, leftists, one worlders and UN ass kissers to stop obstructing the Bolton nomination as ambassador to the UN. The US needs a tough talking, no nonsense fellow at that cesspool of corruption and scandal on Turtle Bay. I, for one, do not care if Mr. Bolton may offend some ambassador from som two bit tinhorn dictatorship. It is time that some one at the UN stand up and tell the UN it is time they get their act together before they slip into total irrelevance. The New York Post expands on this in today's editorial.

And as the Democrats fiddle, the U.N. burns. In recent days, there have been more developments in one major scandal — as a new one comes to light:

* Paul Volcker refused to waive diplomatic immunity to allow Robert Parton — a member of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's commission examining Oil-for-Food — to testify before a congressional committee.

* Sources close to Parton allege that the commission quashed two draft reports highly critical of Annan.

On Wednesday, Parton — who quit the task force following the release of a whitewash report in March — responded to a House subpoena and turned over sensitive documents to the International Relations Committee.

* Michael Wilson — a former executive of Cotecna, the Swiss-based firm mired in the Oil-for-Food scandal that employed Annan's son Kojo as a consultant — is under suspicion of accepting $3.4 million in bribes in connection with a construction project undertaken by another U.N. subsidiary, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Are Americans supposed to greet with a straight face the news that intelligence officials — who have gotten data wrong for years, often with tragic results — now bad mouth someone unafraid to say that maybe these guys could be wrong?

Again, this farce must end — the sooner the better— and with John Bolton's confirmation.

The Washington Post reported today that tax receipts exceeded treasury predictions. Looks like lower taxes have increased revenues, not reduced them. Now if we can get Congress to stop spending like drunken sailors, we may yet get the deficit under control. Lawrence Kudlow looks at the numbers in his commentary.

But the real story behind the higher tax payment numbers is the successful supply-side experiment that began in the middle of 2003, when investment tax rates were slashed on capital gains and dividends. With new incentives to counter the deflation of investment in 2000-2002, both capital formation and economic growth have come back from the dead over the past 2 years.

Real GDP since the tax cuts has averaged 4.3% at an annual rate, whereas growth was only 2.4% in the anemic recovery preceding the tax cuts. The latest government data on tax collection for calendar 2004 confirms the tax-cut-led recovery through the explosion of high tax collections at lower tax rates. The Laffer curve is working.

With more people keeping more of what they earn and invest, after-tax, a major new economic boom has been launched. Enormous wealth creation from real estate, stocks, and small business creation is the backbone of this entrepreneurial recovery. Despite naysayers in the mainstream media and parts of Wall St., strong economic expansion will continue for many years.

Things are looking good in the war on terror. Let's remember tht while things are going well, there is still a long road ahead. I posted the other day on how al-Qeada has had a couple of bad days. With perseverence, those bad days will continue. Jams S. Robbins has some musings in his commentary.

The thing I like best about terrorist-takedown reportage is the before and after shot.

Take for example the latest, of al Qaeda honcho Abu Farraj al-Libbi. In his wanted posters, he looks very urbane and sophisticated. In the after shot, not so inspiring. And I am not getting on his case about the vitiligo, the skin disease that gives him that mottled look. He could not help that. Rather it is the classic mug-shot mien. Hair mussed, clothes rumpled, downcast — nothing remotely heroic about it. It looks a bit like he is wearing mascara, and one report that indicated he was hiding his movements by dressing in a full chador though another attributed this disguise to the Pakistani security forces who were tracking him. Maybe they were all in drag. Imagine the chase.

The daily life of an al Qaeda leader is an endurance test for survival. They spend their time moving from safe house to safe house, in constant fear of discovery, attempting vainly to organize large-scale attacks on their enemies and speculating when they will be betrayed by their friends. It is not a rewarding existence, not even by terrorist standards. This cannot be the jihad they signed up for. Even the most committed among them may be wondering when Osama's master plan is going to kick in and they will start winning a few rounds.

Al Qaeda's failure to achieve any of its strategic goals or to conduct operations against the U.S. homeland is discouraging to some of its members. Recently Abu Musab al-Zarqawi complained about the lack of "willing martyrs" for attacks on the United States. Several days ago, U.S. Central Command posted a letter to Zarqawi from one of his underlings that revealed low morale and lack of trust within his organization. Zarqawi is not exactly safe either; he recently narrowly evaded capture during a hot pursuit by bailing out of a pickup truck under a highway underpass. Coalition forces captured his laptop and a trove of documents. Now he being reported allegedly wounded, or maybe sick, frequenting a hospital apparently for treatment. His insurgency controls no territory, and apart from being able to inflict some casualties, Zarqawi does not seem to be making much progress in his area of responsibility.

Abu Farraj was reportedly al Qaeda's chief of operations for the wider world, particularly Europe and the United States. He succeeded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when he was taken out of circulation in March 2003 (another classic capture photo). He is said to have planned the September 25, 2004, assassination attempts on Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, who has been on al Qaeda's "to do" list since abandoning the Taliban soon after 9/11. Since then Pakistan has not helped round up terrorists with the vigor we may have wanted, but assassination attempts tend to get a dictator's attention. Musharraf also recently for the first time stated that he believed bin Laden may be hiding in his country, a significant shift which may show a new seriousness about taking down the still at large remnants of the al Qaeda leadership.

Events may now follow quickly; this is a dangerous time for everyone in the terrorist network. They cannot know what the exploitation teams are getting from captured documents and interrogations, so they have to engage their evasion plans and go to ground as quickly as possible. This entails risk — they can make mistakes in the rush to get under cover. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks how many subsidiary raids are made, how many terrorists flushed, how many brought in alive. For al Qaeda it means some sleepless nights — that is, more than usual.

LOST, the Law of the Sea Treaty, is once again before the Senate. LOST represents the single largest give away of American sovereignty in our history. Nathan Tabor explains.

If LOST gains American support, an uncontested International Seabed Authority will regulate the oceans of the world. In fact, they are already divvying up the ocean floor in what has been called “the largest land grab in human history.” The UN will have the power to regulate and tax all undersea mining activities – which could affect vast stores of minerals and up to 20 percent of the world’s petroleum resources – and as a result will rake in trillions of dollars of revenue.

The UN will have the power to control shipping lanes and to restrict the movements of navies – possibly even banning the undersea operations of our nuclear submarines. UN bureaucrats could potentially control human activities on land, on inland waterways, and even in Outer Space, on the premise that all these might pollute the oceans. The UN, flush with its newfound tax wealth, might even float its own “Blue Hulls” navy to enforce the unappealable edicts of its international maritime courts.

“This accord would constitute the most egregious transfer of American sovereignty, wealth and power to the UN since the founding of that ‘world body,’” explains Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy. “In fact, never before in the history of the world has any nation voluntarily engaged in such a sweeping transfer to anyone.”

Politicians of both parties, big oil companies, and wild-eyed environmental groups all want to see this flawed treaty go into effect. But our nation’s very survival is at stake. True American patriots will fight against LOST – tooth and nail.

A couple of articles over the past day or so, point to the difficulties al-Qeada is having with leadership. First there is a letter that was recovered by US forces. The letter is from Abu Asim al Qusayami al Yemeni to Abu Musab Zarqawi about poor morale and incompetent leadership. The second is the annoucement of the capture of the al-Qeada number 3 man, Abu Farraj al-Libbi, in Pakistan. You can see the entire articles here and here.

He wrote to Zarqawi that he could no longer trust people who say they were representatives of the terror master and wanted a face-to-face meeting to discuss setbacks. It is not clear whether Yemeni believed there were traitors within the organization who wanted to capitalize on a coalition reward of $25 million for information leading to the capture or killing of Zarqawi.

The letter, dated April 27, was seized in a raid on a house in Baghdad that also netted the coalition other documents, including a list of possible targets.

"The morale has weakened and lines of the mujahidin have become separated due to some leaders' action," Yemeni wrote. "God does not accept such actions and that will delay victory. We do have big mistakes where some of us have been discarded."

Marines and special-operations troops came within minutes of capturing Zarqawi near Ramadi in February. A tip led forces to his hideout, but he and senior lieutenants left before the raid and traveled in a convoy spotted by a Predator drone. By the time troops stopped the convoy, Zarqawi had leapt from a truck and escaped.

With Zarqawi on the run, he has left day-to-day operations up to leaders of his various cells.

"We have leaders that are not capable of being good leaders," Yemeni wrote. "We are not accusing them without reason, but we have tested them and found them incapable."arqawi will be captured eventually. This letter is very telling in what leadership will be left.

One official said the suspects were in the custody of a Pakistani intelligence agency but declined to give more details, including the suspects' nationalities.

Al-Libbi is accused of masterminding two bombings against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in December 2003. The military leader escaped injury but 17 others were killed in one of the attacks.

He is accused of taking over as al-Qaida's operational chief in Pakistan after the March 1, 2003, arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the terror network's alleged number three. Mohammed was later handed over to U.S. custody and his whereabouts are unknown.

Musharraf, a key ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, named the Libyan as the chief suspect in the bombings against him. He was among six suspects identified as Pakistan's "Most Wanted Terrorists" in a poster campaign last year.

In the poster, he appeared in a photo as a dapper man with a short beard, wearing a Western suit and tie. The other suspects were all Pakistanis, linked to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Sunni Muslim militant group believed tied to al-Qaida. Al-Libbi is not on the FBI's list of the globe's Most Wanted Terrorists.

The all out attempt to blame the Bush adminstration for Noth Korea's nukes continues. Now it is Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright claiming that the Iraq war is the cause of NK developing nukes. umm...Ms. Albright, NK already had the nukes before the Iraq war, thanks to your former boss giving them the nuke reactors. It all happened on your watch. This is being reported by NewsMax.

"What we did during our watch was to freeze the nuclear program," she told Alan Colmes. "And I think intelligence un-skewed has shown that it is in the last three years that this nuclear capability of North Korea has emerged."

Last September, however, Albright admitted that North Korea had duped the Clinton administration, and that Kim Jong Il began to acquire nuclear weapons on her watch.

"What they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating," she told NBC's "Meet the Press."

"The worst part that has happened under the Agreed Framework," Albright explained, was that "there [were] these fuel rods, and the nuclear program was frozen."

Doc Farmer has a potpourri (a little french lingo there for you, Doc) of topics in his weekly column. Maybe all that planning to take over the USA has him a little unfocused. I did find the blurbs about AARP and the First Lady interesting. AARP is not on my Christmas list. Enjoy Doc's ramblings. - Sailor

Odds and Sods
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, May 04, 2005


I’m really having a hard time coming up with a single subject to natter on about this week. Well, for a whole thousand words, anyway. So, I hope you’ll excuse me if I take the news in slightly more manageable bites....


Runaway Bride

Some people get cold feet. Apparently, this woman got a cold heart and brain to match. She scared the bejesus out of her fiancée, her family, and her community. To top it off, she lied about what happened to try and cover her embarrassment. The media went ape excrement over this issue for about a week, until she finally surfaced in New Mexico. They interviewed people who flew with her, to see if she looked different. Of course she looked different, she was wearing a blanket over her head! Now officials are wondering if they should press charges. Wondering? This woman should be prosecuted. Martha Stewart did five months in Camp Cupcake without causing so much heartache. Also, the fiancée should be damned grateful that he dodged the bullet.

Attack Of The Killer Burrito

This one stretches credulity to the breaking point, folks. And shows just how sissified our society has become. A young lad in New Mexico inadvertently caused a major security lockdown of a school. His crime? He was seen walking into school with a long cylindrical object about 30 inches long and 4 inches in diameter. It was wrapped in foil and a t-shirt. Fearing the worst, officials set up snipers across the street, locked down the school and dissected the dangerous object. Was it a bomb? A sawed-off shotgun? Nope. It was a burrito. An el-GRANDE burrito, to be sure. It was for a class project. The kid never caused trouble in school before, had good grades, and wasn’t a freakazoid. The school’s saying “better safe than sorry”
but I think there’s a marked difference between safety and stupidity here.

Tearin’ Down The House

Have you seen that idiotic political ad from the AARP? There’s a plumber giving a housewife advice. The sink is clogged, so they’ll have to demolish the house. As soon as he says that, a bulldozer takes down an adjoining wall. Now, if the lady was a “palestinian” terrorist and her kid had just blown up an Israeli pizza joint (and yes, kosher pizza is possible) I could see the logic. However, there is no logic in the AARP’s scare tactics. The president has put forward ideas, but nothing’s been set in stone yet. The lib/dem/soc/commies have been screaming and wailing and gnashing their teeth, but have
yet to proffer a single suggestion on how to fix the socialist mess that is social “security.” Now you’ve got the AARP showing its colors as to its political leanings. Well, once I saw that ad I said “Hello!” to NextUSA (it’s headed up by Art Linkletter) and “Good Riddance!” to the AARP. If you belong to the latter organization, you might want to give them the old heave-ho. If you do, tell them that you’re old enough to not have your intelligence so thoroughly insulted by these partisan bozos.

The Lady Is A Tramp?

Did you see the First Lady at the White House Correspondent’s
Dinner last week? What a HOOT! Excellent material, fantastic timing, wonderful delivery. It was received with raucous laughter and a well deserved standing ovation at the end. I didn’t see Cedric the Entertainer who followed her, but I doubt even he could have matched a class act like that. Now, however, the lib/dem/soc/commies are finding fault. Mrs. Bush wasn’t really at Chippendales, they cry, so she is now a liar. She was quite rude when she mentioned her husband “milking the horse” (and a male one at that). She doesn’t really watch “Desperate Housewives” and on and on they kvetch. Now, I’ll admit that the First Lady is no Whoopie Goldberg (thank God again!) - after all, she didn’t walk around the stage swigging from a wine bottle or compare her husband’s surname to her crotch.
Lib/dem/soc/commies seem to appreciate that sort of “humor” more than us red-staters. Well, fie on them, I say. Mrs. Bush, you done good. I’d rather see you as the host of the Daily Show as well. Jon Stewart’s a putz. You, at least, are truly a class act.


The Border and the BIC

No, I’m not talking about your pen or your lighter. I’m speaking of Fox News’ Bloviator In Chief, Bill O’Reilly, Esquire. Or, as I’m wont to refer to him, BOR(E). As you can tell, I’m not a fan. He’s a self-promoter more than a journalist, in my humble opinion. I’m still honked off with him for his
interference in the case of those US citizens who were taken by their Saudi father and kept from their mother. Moreover, I do find it tedious that he spends the last few minutes of his program hawking his wares, although a portion of the price goes to charity. But even a broken clock can be right twice a day, and O’Reilly is right on the money when it comes to the border crisis and his support of the Minuteman Project. He publicized an on-line petition to the President to get our illegal alien situation under control, and I’d like to pass it along to you - http://www.reformus.org/. As of Tuesday night, there have been over 330,000 signers. If Dubya and the Beltway Bandits are going to even begin to take this seriously, there should be about a million signers by Memorial Day. Pass this along to your friends, family, and anybody on your mailing
list.


Global Warming My @$*#&^!!!

April Showers Bring May Flowers, the old rhyme goes. Well, lately it’s been bringing snow showers. Monday and Tuesday nights brought FROST WARNINGS to my area. Scraping off my windshields at 05:45 in the A of M is not my idea of a springtime romp. Still, however, the Weather Channel toots the horn of destruction and buys the stream of male bovine excrement that the enviro-wackos and pseudo-scientists continually sell. Trust me, if it’s May and I’m outside freezing my tits off, warming can hardly be considered global.

And Speaking Of Al Roker

Okay, I’m now going to reveal a secret to you that nobody has dared to even breathe. Mulder and Skully know nothing of this, and I doubt they’d touch it with a ten-foot pole (or two five-foot Armenians). I know the truth about the weather. It’s all a global conspiracy of weathermen. Al Roker, Willard Scott, the BBC’s Michael Fish, Steve Doocy (the guy on Fox & Friends that looks frighteningly similar to Ryan Stiles from The Drew Carey Show) and others are all in control of a weather machine. They don’t predict the weather,
folks. They make it. Then, they go on TV and lie their butts off. Why do they do this? Just to mess with us. As well as to deflect blame from themselves when their predictions go bad. I mean, think about it. These guys are pulling megabucks for being WRONG 80% of the time. Talk about a sweet deal, eh?

~~~~~oo0oo~~~~~

Well, hopefully something more interesting and engaging will happen in the next week, causing me to raise my hackles and rant on for a thousand words or so....



About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.


This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=14388

Hilary Clinton, the dems/leftists and their allies in the MSM are once again trying to revise history. This time they are trying to paint the picture that it is the Bush adminstration that is responsible for the North Korean nuclear mess. For eigth years the Clinton administration bent over backwards to appease NK, including giving them two light water nuclear reactors. Now where do you think NK got the fissionable material to make their bombs from? This editorial from the Washington Times digs into this cheap political theatre.

Democrats and their mainstream media allies have been peddling a new and highly inventive theory about North Korea's nuclear-weapons program: that Pyongyang only makes nukes when Republicans hold the White House.

As the theory goes, North Korea's nuclear ambitions go on holiday when Democrats take office and only return with the election of someone like George W. Bush. If a President John Kerry were in office to hand out concessions to North Korea the way Bill Clinton did, the tyrants in Pyongyang would presumably be rolling out red carpets for the International Atomic Energy Agency and turning their reactor fuel back over to the power plants.

The Clinton administration's eight years compounded these North Korean successes. The diplomatic enticements and sweetheart deals it engineered or endorsed, including the Agreed Framework, all gave Pyongyang more resources and time to pursue its bomb.

The truth is that North Korea will likely continue attempting to pursue its nuclear-weapons program regardless of who occupies the White House. In her letter to Miss Rice, Mrs. Clinton called on the Bush administration to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea, as though such talks would be more fruitful than the Agreed Framework the North Koreans walked all over during the Clinton administration. Pyongyang has been demanding bilateral negotiations. The Bush administration has rightly opposed them, but it is hardly clear that the six-party talks it has pursued will yield better results. The record to date is that every diplomatic effort, whether by Democratic or Republican administrations, to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear-weapons efforts has been unsuccessful. Instead of pointing fingers, responsible people in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, need to come to grips with this unpleasant reality.

The President has laid SS reform at the feet of the dems. Their response, as predictable as one would expect, was to continue bashing Bush's proposals. As I have posted before, SS is a finacial nightmare about to go into insolvency. The dems need to present some proposals of their own, instead of trashing the President. Of course, it would be helpful if the dems actually had a plan. OpinionJournal has some comments in their Review & Outlook.

As a policy matter, this at least challenges Democrats to honor their own principles. For months they've been saying they really do want to do something about Social Security "solvency," which means shoring up its inevitable financing shortfall. By adjusting the formula for future benefits based on income, Mr. Bush has now embraced the "fairness" claims that Democrats say they hold dear. So are they serious or not?

On first response, not. Democrats immediately opposed Mr. Bush's proposal--the brainchild of Democratic financier Robert Pozen--as "big benefit cuts." AARP lobbyist John Rother proved his organization's lack of sincerity by calling it "an unnecessary and unfair benefit cut on the middle class."

We hope this does jumble the political deck, but at this stage we're skeptical. Democrats feel they can tag a political defeat on Mr. Bush and profit in 2006 by just saying no; they've made opposition to even tiny private investment accounts a partisan imperative. And because Mr. Bush needs at least five Senate Democrats to pass a bill, the odds of success are long.

On the latter point, what we do know with confidence is that, between now and 2017, the payroll tax will raise at least $2.2 trillion more in taxes than will be paid out in benefits. That "surplus" cash will not go into some vault waiting for the Baby Boomers to retire but will instead be spent by Congress--on things like one more bridge in Alaska.

If Democrats refuse to budge, this is where Republicans should take the debate. If a grand compromise is impossible, how about protecting payroll tax money for the next 12 years from the politicians who would spend it? This wouldn't require the large borrowing for a 75-year fix that Democrats say they oppose. And this would at least get the idea of private accounts off the ground, as well as put that $2.2 trillion to better use in the private economy.

Mr. Bush deserves credit for taking on a problem in Social Security that does not become acute on his watch, and we still hope he succeeds. Even if he loses this year's battle, he is winning the larger war of ideas by making the GOP the party of reform. But it takes two parties to pass this one, and if Democrats won't dance Mr. Bush needs to avoid falling into their solvency trap.

This is a follow up of sorts to yesterday's posting on the Collapse of the Old Media. No matter how hard some of the MSM protest that they are not biased, their liberal slips keep showing in their reporting or, more correctly, in what they omit in their reporting. John Leo explains in his commentary.

Let's look at the John Bolton nomination. Botlon is being accused of being rude by one Melody Townsel, a contractor that reported to Bolton on a project in Russia. She claoms he chased her down the hall yelling at her. Waht you did not know about Townsel from some of the MSM, is that she also headed up the left wing Dallas chapter of Mothers Against Bush.

Does it matter that Townsel is a liberal Democrat and founder of the Dallas chapter of Mothers Opposing Bush? Maybe not. Even anti-Bush liberals can find themselves pursued through Russian hotels by rapidly moving Republicans. But it matters a lot that most news outlets withheld her partisan connections in reporting the story. Time magazine, United Press International, and three newspapers, USA Today, the Dallas Morning News, and the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail, reported the information about Mothers Opposing Bush. But according to a computer search Thursday, apart from the conservative press and a couple of in-groupy Washington newsletters like Hotline and the Frontrunner, that was it in the print media.

Another example is the story of Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist kidnapped in Iraq. Sgrena was released after a ransom was reportedly paid, then was fired on by American troops as her car traveled to the Baghdad airport. An Italian intelligence agent in the vehicle was killed by the gunfire. The American soldiers said the vehicle was moving at a high speed and failed to respond to warning shots at a checkpoint. Sgrena said that her vehicle was moving slowly and that there was no checkpoint. She suggested she might have been deliberately targeted by Americans because the United States does not like negotiating with the insurgents. She said: "The Americans are against this type of operation. For them, war is war; human life doesn't count for much."

Few news outlets reported all of the following facts, which surely bear on her probable credibility: She strongly opposed the American invasion, she identifies with the resistance to the United States in Iraq, she works for a Communist paper, and she is a Communist herself. Many media outlets reported that her employer, Il Manifesto, is a Communist paper. Her anti-Americanism was more rarely noticed, and the fact that she is a Communist was almost always omitted. According to a computer search, the New York Times didn't use the "C" word at all in the Sgrena case, referring to Il Manifesto as a "leftist" daily. This is correct, I suppose, in the same sense that a Nazi paper could be called a "rightist" weekly.

1 year and 4 days after I made my first blog post, the blog has had it's 10,000th viewer. Thank you all for taking the time to read the rantings of an old sailor. - Sailor

The big media, aka, the MSM, have been in decline for some years now. Other media outlets are now rapidly becoming the main source of news and information for many Americans. Terry Eastland looks into this matter in his Wilson Quarterly commentary.

The First Amendment protects against government abridgment of the freedom of the press. But it doesn’t guarantee that today’s news media—some would already say yesterday’s—will be tomorrow’s. Though most existing news organizations will probably survive, few if any are likely to enjoy the prestige and clout they once did. So it’s time to write, if not an obituary, then an account of their rise and decline and delicate prospects amid the “new media” of cable television, talk radio, and the blogosphere.

The “new media” carry the adjective because they began to emerge only in the 1980s, when the media of newspapers, newsmagazines, and network and local television news had long been firmly in place. Most newspapers had been around since the first decades of the 20th century, and though rising costs and competition caused some to be shuttered in the decades after World War II, there were still more than 1,700 papers published daily in the 1970s. Time and Newsweek were established, respectively, in 1923 and 1933. Network television newscasts were reaching most parts of the country by the 1950s, and local stations eventually provided their own news programs at various points in the day.

There are many explanations for why Americans have been turning away from their old news providers, including adjustments in how people now live and work (fewer have time to watch the evening news) and the lack of interest in news evident among younger generations whose tastes often carry them to MTV. But the media can also blame themselves for the change.

Here it bears noting that though journalists aspired to the status of professionals, they never acquired the self-regulatory mechanisms found in law, medicine, or even business. The nation’s journalism schools, which taught—and still teach—a craft better learned on the job, never really filled the void. Those schools often tended to hire former journalists lacking both the intellectual capability and the inclination to undertake serious analysis of the institutions whence they came. Critical scholarship by those outside the guild tended to be summarily dismissed, and the field was always thin on professional journals examining its practices and guiding ideas. Most of those that were tried—for example, I edited Forbes Media Critic from 1993 through 1996—found no footing. Media criticism, such as it was, leaned mostly to polemics and insider chatter (news people are happy to talk endlessly about themselves, evidently on the assumption that others are eager to listen).

Of course, the media did have critics who didn’t publish articles—ordinary Americans. Too often they’d turn on the evening news and hear about conflict and controversy. It was as though news, if it were to be real, had to be boiled down to some negative essence, some clod of dirt that the subjects of a story flung at each other. Or they’d see an interview in which a correspondent would ask a nonquestion question designed to put the hapless interviewee in his or her place. Thus in 1995 did a CBS Good Morning host “ask” then-senator Phil Gramm of Texas, “If you really want to reduce the deficit, are you going to have to cut entitlements? But I’m sure you don’t want to talk about that.” Or the public would read news stories in which the writers took gratuitous shots at their subjects. Thus did Maureen Dowd, before her elevation from reporter to columnist at The New York Times, lead her front-page story on President Bill Clinton’s 1994 visit to Oxford with a sentence stating that he was making “a sentimental journey to the university where he didn’t inhale, didn’t get drafted, and didn’t get a degree.”

The public had another problem with media figures: their political and social views. Surveys taken over several decades demonstrated that most national journalists voted Democratic and were politically and socially liberal. In 1962, The Columbia Journalism Review published a survey of 273 Washington journalists in which 57 percent called themselves liberal and 28 percent conservative, with the rest choosing “middle of the road” or declining any label. The conservative contingent was down to 17 percent when sociologist S. Robert Lichter and Smith College political scientist Stanley Rothman conducted another survey in 1980. Most respondents said they were “lifestyle liberals,” meaning that they favored abortion rights and affirmative action and rejected the notion that homosexuality was wrong. Eighty-six percent said they seldom or never attended religious services. Eighty-one percent had voted for George McGovern in 1972. In 1992, another survey of 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents found that 89 percent planned to vote for the Democrat, Bill Clinton, in the approaching presidential election.

The surveys certainly said something about the media. But they did not say that the news the media provided was biased; that required its own demonstration. Members of the elite media often asserted that the public could count on their professionalism to ensure against bias. Yet they seldom admitted bias, even in stories in which it was all too obvious.

Some establishment journalists argued that the media now had an obligation to turn the spotlight on Bush. Syndicated columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr., a former reporter for both The New York Times and The Washington Post, wrote, “Now that John Kerry’s life during his twenties has been put at the heart of this campaign just over two months from Election Day, the media owe the country a comparable review of what Bush was doing at the same time and the same age. If all the stories about what Kerry did in Vietnam are not balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the Vietnam years, the media will be capitulating to a right-wing smear campaign. Surely our nation’s editors and producers don’t want to send a signal that all you have to do to set the media’s agenda is to spend a half-million bucks on television ads.”


Not just CBS News but several other establishment outlets were trying to reset that agenda by pursuing the National Guard story, a quest that would carry them to the door of the same man who passed the bogus documents to CBS and was described by the panel that investigated the fiasco as a “partisan with an anti-Bush agenda.” CBS acted first, with fateful results, but none of the other media ever produced any authentic documents either. The story simply wasn’t there.

Occasionally you see evidence that an old media outlet is beginning to get it. Beginning, I say. Consider The New York Times, like CBS News a charter member of the establishment media, and, like CBS News, an institution burdened by a recent scandal (Jayson Blair’s plagiarism and fabrications) which eventually cost top journalists their jobs. In January 2004 the Times effectively conceded the need to enlarge the field in which it looks for news when it deployed a reporter to cover, as the Times’ press release put it, “conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business, and the media.” It was as if the Times had decided that it should now cover some far-off, exotic country that had suddenly become a world power—and yet it was dispatching only a single correspondent to do the job! But at least that was a start. Finally, there was change. So the Times was right to put out a press release: This really was news.

Doc Farmer has decided he wants to take over the United States. Not by force mind you, just a simple insurrecction. Now I like Doc and he is my freinds, but I do have a little adice for Doc. Try practicing on some thing a little smaller, say Canada. My son has an excellent plan for buying Canada, Doc. - Sailor

My Plan To Take Over The United States of America
Written by Doc Farmer
Saturday, April 30, 2005


Y'know, I've been writing these articles for nigh on two years now. I've written about the problems in our nation, and how we should correct them. I've stood up for the President when he's right, and I've chastised the President when he's wrong. There has been a lot more of the former than the latter, I might add (for any lib/dem/soc/commies out there, wringing their hands in glee in hope of a split in the
rep/con party) and I find him a likeable and more-than-competent Commander in Chief.

In all the time I have been writing this column, however, not once have any of my ideas been put into play. I had a solution to the voting problem. No sweat, just reprogram lottery machines. Even come up with incentives for people to vote in every state. I had a solution to the idiocy of Daylight Saving Time (which does no such thing). Get rid of it. If it's too dark in the morning for the kids to go to school, change the school hours. I had a solution for the fact that you can't get a sitting Senator or Congressman out of his seat without resorting to metaphorical dynamite. A Constitutional amendment for term limits. Did our vaunted representatives beat a path to my door and praise me for my foresight?

Go on, guess!

Now, we're in the midst of a war that slightly less than one half of Congress is fighting against, while slightly more
than one half of Congress is cowering in fear of potentially offending the slightly less than one half of Congress. We've got lib/dem/soc/commies kvetching about judicial nominees, threatening to filibuster, and daring to call the Constitutional option of changing the Senate rules ''nuclear.'' We've got a Justice Department that is anything but just, a Tax Department that is all too taxing, a Health and Human Services Department that is sick and inhumane, the list goes on and on.

We're in debt up to our great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren's eyeballs. A full 75% of our government agencies and functions are not sanctioned by the Constitution. Our soldiers have to wait in line for supplies and support because fat cat Congressmen and Senators are more worried about not offending minority groups than they are concerned with the defense of our nation. We're up to our collective be-hinds in illegal aliens, and our Border Patrol and local cops along the US/Mexico divide
actually take them to bus stations to move them deeper into American territory!

I've done more than write these articles. I've phoned other like-minded people in this country and asked them to help. I've written my Congressman and Senators (although only one of them even bothers to write back) until I have to uncramp my hand with a ball-peen hammer. I've phoned the Department of (No) Justice and asked them, very nicely, to do their job for a change. I've called the INS (or whatever their name is these days) and reported illegal aliens in MICHIGAN, for pity's sake.

All for naught.

Well, there's only so much a man can take.

So, there's only one option left. I have no choice but to take over the government of the United States of America.

Before anybody starts to yell ''Treason! Treason!'' please note that I plan a peaceful overthrow. No guns, no knives, no whoopee cushions, no rubber chickens. Well, okay,
maybe one rubber chicken. It is the duty of a citizen of this nation to take peaceful but assertive action in order to correct the manifold wrongs and problems created by the government. We are, after all, supposed to be a government of, by and for the people. Sadly, we've become a government of, by and for the government. Oh, and a lot of special interest groups.

Actually, taking over the country won't be all that hard. As long as I do it right. For one thing, I am NOT planning to stand in front of the Capitol Building with a couple of suitcases demanding to see the President. Last I checked, he doesn't live there. Hell, he doesn't even work there. He only visits once a year, and I'm not about to stand outside that building in the middle of January freezing my rump off waiting.

I simply plan to make an appointment to see President Bush. That way,
I'll know he's home. I don't need to bring any luggage - I'm sure my folks can forward my clothes along after I take over. It's not like they don't know the address, after all. When I enter the building, I'm sure I'll be checked for all manner of weapons. Although I do plan to carry my rapier wit, I am pretty sure that's not going to show up on the magnetometers.

When I enter the Oval Office, things will run along these lines, more or less…

Dubya: Good morning, sir. How can I help you today?

Doc: Well, Mr. President, I'm here to relieve you of your duties.

Dubya: Come again?

Doc: I'm taking over the country. Do you think you and your wife can be moved out by Thursday?

Dubya: Now, wait a minute.

Doc: Actually, I've been waiting for a number of years, so I guess one more minute won't hurt.

Dubya: Are you telling me you're coming in here to commit an act of armed insurrection?


Doc: Oh, no, not armed. Regular insurrection will do.

Dubya: You're violating the Constitution, you understand.

Doc: Sir, when's the last time anybody in this town actually OBEYED the Constitution?

Dubya: . . . Damn. I hate to admit it, but you've got me on that one.

Doc: Don't worry. You've done a good job for the most part. But this government needs a kick in the butt, and I'm afraid you're just too nice a guy to do it.

Dubya: And just how long do you plan to be in power?


Doc: A couple of years at most. I'll definitely move out before the next term starts in 2009. That's more than enough time to fire the congress, impeach every federal judge, hire new ones, pay off the national debt, implement some new Constitutional amendments (by national elections, of course), burn down the IRS, seal up the borders, kick out the illegals, restructure federal law, rebuild the armed forces, kick out the United Nations, prevent Hellary from EVER getting back into this building, legalize pot, criminalize Paulie Shore, send the ACLU to Abu Ghraib (permanently), nuke France, depose Castro, have Hanoi Jane, Hanoi John, Beijing Bill and Baghdad Jim tried for treason, strengthen veteran's benefits, apologize to Martha Stewart, make American (not English) the national language, make TexMex the national dish, make the Ladies of Fox News the national babes, embrace our friends, cut off our enemies, and
generally put this country back on the track the original founders intended.

Dubya: Nuke France, huh?

Doc: Yup.

Dubya: Uh, can we make it Friday? Laura wanted to clean the curtains on Thursday.

Doc: No problem. Thanks.

Dubya: No, thank you.

Of course, I wouldn't be able to run everything all by myself. However, I think I would have no problem recruiting some help. Ann Coulter (Hubba! Hubba!) would make a wonderful Vice President. Especially when it came time to run all those redundant Congressmen out of town on a rail. Rummy could stay on, of course, but this time as Secretary of State. If that doesn't scare every ''diplomat'' out of the UN, I don't know what will. I'd probably move Dr. Condi Rice over to Defense - she's a brilliant resource, and I'd be foolish to waste talent like hers. Director of Communications? Sean Hannity! He'd take the job in a heartbeat, just to get away from Alan Colmes. Normally I'd ask El Rushbo, but he's already said he couldn't handle the cut in pay. Besides, I'd have to have something to listen to from noon 'til three...

I haven't decided when I'll fly to D.C. to break the news to Dubya. I'm sure he'll be relieved, though. His wife will be even more relieved - she's been bugging him to help her redecorate the den back at their ranch, after all.

Win-Win all around, as
far as I can see.

Well, except for the enemies of America, the Constitution, and our Freedoms of course. They will be SOOOOO screwed.


About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=14324

I took this personality thing and here are the results. Try this one and have some fun. - Sailor