Links Contact Us

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Medical emergency

So sorry not to have posted in a while. It is due to a medical emergency. Will post again starting Monday morning. So tune in again on Monday!

Friday, March 17, 2006

"Judicial hegemony"

What a wonderful turn of phrase -- "judicial hegemony". Scalia may have hit upon something here, friends. For years, the left has used the word "hegemony" like a weapon, but in reality, the definition falls short when they apply it. Here, however, what a wonderful way to get the point across. I still like "judicial activism" as a descriptive term, but "judicial hegemony" is a delightful Scaliaism.

Each of his quotes is right on target. But here's hoping he is wrong that we cannot get someone with his views confirmed to the Court of Appeals. Let's prove him wrong on that one count?

If we cannot confirm judges such as Scalia who apparently harbor the not-so-radical notion that judges should apply the Constitution as it is written, rather than using some secret decoder ring or kneeling at the throne of the radical leftist agenda that embraces the "living Constitution" theory, then we have a rather grim future for the Constitution itself.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Government trust funds -- eventually another bill for the taxpayer.

One of the reasons that is often cited for why judicial nominees have not taken front and center on the Judiciary Committee's agenda has been the battle over asbestos reform.

There are some interesting forces at work in Washington DC to watch in this tug-of-war.

In a February 24th article from Reuters, the situation is described as the following: "The co-sponsors of legislation to create a $140 billion asbestos victims' compensation fund are trying together 60 senators' signatures on a letter asking for another vote on the bill, Senate aides said on Friday. Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy began circulating the letter this week after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist demanded pledges of support from at least 60 members -- enough to overcome procedural hurdles -- before bringing the embattled legislation back to the Senate floor."

"(The bill) would pay the claims instead from a $140 billion fund financed by asbestos defendant companies and their insurers."

In February, the asbestos legislation was put into legislative limbo after it failed to get the sixty 60 votes required to overcome a budgetary point of order. It did, however, manage to get 58 votes which clearly have emboldened supporters to do a little old-fashioned arm-twisting. The letter being circulated specifically asks Majority Leader Frist, with eyes on 2008, to schedule another vote on the point of order.

Let's be very clear here. There is an awful lot of money involved here. If a Senator is willing to change a vote, there is a very good chance that the asbestos lobby's deep pockets have won the day over the taxpayers pockets. The vote that stopped the bill was a budgetary point of order which specifically stated that the legislation was not properly funded -- the trust fund established by the bill would go bankrupt.

And who ALWAYS picks up the tab when a "trust fund" goes bankrupt? The taxpayers. Us. We'll have the privilege of adding this to the ever growing tab courtesy of Washington DC which is a boondoggle to the tune of billions of dollars. Drunken sailors in the halls of Congress? Nope -- drunken sailors spend their own money, friends.

These cats who live pretty well, seem to think we will foot the bill for just about any idea that comes along. Senators, live up to your vote and to your talking points about "fiscal responsibility." Put an end to this foolishness now.

Operation Swarmer

Godspeed to the 101st Airborne, the Marines, the Special Forces and the Cavalry Scouts involved in today's "Operation Swarmer" and the amazingly brave Iraqi forces that are leading this assault.

"Welcome to my world, Claude Allen" says Coulter

Ann Coulter has the best column of all time this week -- hits the nail on the head on all counts.

Few people would believe the amount of hatred spewed by leftists at those of us who battle either in the trenches or on the front lines for our beliefs. The common thread of hate mail from leftists, by the way, is the prolific use of four-letter words. I have even had my children threatened by several twisted folks for God knows what reason. Every conservative who puts themselves out there and has any degree of success knows this.

No one knows the hate of the left, however, like black conservatives do. The hate is pure and palpable and evil. There are letters to black conservative friends of mine that make me physically ill.

There aren't many certainties in Washington DC -- things can change on a dime. Relationships, allies, friends, issues, agenda items, jobs, whatever. But one thing is a certainty -- Claude Allen, former Domestic Policy Advisor to the President, is one of the most decent men I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Integrity and loyalty is in a short supply around here -- many loyalties are bought and paid for lock, stock and barrel. But Claude Allen is and has always been by all accounts, one of the most decent, capable, devout men they have known -- and despite the best efforts of the media to destroy him, there are many of us who know the truth of the man firsthand and reject their hysterical reaction. Would that they had covered the many excellent acts of his life's work.

Whatever the resolution of the issues in Claude Allen's life are going to be, I know this -- if the charges against him are true, it does not in the least bit diminish the man as I know him -- clearly something went terribly, terribly wrong in his life and it can happen to any mere mortal. If the issue is favorably resolved, then I hope that the media, so joyful in the destruction of Mr. Allen, will print the result with the same exuberance of the banner headlines that came with the charges.

Remember the good old days -- when judicial nominees were in the news?

Robert Novak has an excellent column today sounding the alarm on the loudly ticking clock on judicial nominees.

If you liked Bill Clinton's judicial nominees (which were, by all accounts, Hillary Clinton's nominees), just wait......if Hillary gets the key to the Oval Office (a big "if"), let me assure you that judicial restraint is out and judicial activism will have full tilt control of the courts. "Constitution, whatever...." will be their anthem and all hopes of reversing the incredibly damaging decades of judicial activism gone hog wild will be nothing but a memory.

It is time -- in fact, it is overdue -- to get this train back on the tracks. It may not be the Supreme Court, but in some ways, getting these vacancies filled is one of the most important things that can be done right now. Discarding this winner of an issue for heaven knows what reason is just plain foolish.

Come on, folks, let's suit up again and get back out there. There are growing numbers of vacancies that need judicial nominees to fill them. There are judicial nominees languishing without a hearing, without a vote, without floor time....

Terrence Boyle seems to be the favorite for many to get confirmation, but the more I learn about Mike Wallace, the more I like him as well. And Kavanaugh -- no reason for him not to be seated on the bench.

It won't be any easier to get these nominees through in September than it is now, let me assure you.

So until I hear a good explanation for why not get these nominees out of nomination purgatory, I say let's get this party started with a good old fashioned knock-down, drag out judicial nomination fight. The silence on this subject has been going on long enough now.

Let's roll.

When the good Lord tests your faith...

It is sometimes pretty amazing to see the way that God can work in your life. Some days, like today in the Daly household, you can get such amazingly wonderful news and within hours, the worst possible news. You begin to wonder if with every blessing there is a cost, but there isn't a ledger.....just pure faith that comes from knowing that even when the answer is a resounding "no" that there could be an even better "yes" to follow if you have the faith and commitment to see it through.

There is much news to catch up on, to be sure. And in the course of the next few hours and days, I intend to do just that. But it has been an odd week here -- one for the record books, truth be told -- and life has gotten in the way of blogging.

We'll get back into it in just a moment so stand by, friends & combatants monitoring this site.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Napolean Dynamite as documentary?

SAN ANTONIO TEEN SHOT IN FIGHT OVER TATER TOTS -- A teenager was shot Monday afternoon after he was arguing over tater tots with another teen, San Antonio Police said......

Now before everyone jumps all over me for this -- heaven knows that I despise the level of violence that teenagers have gotten into, but is it surprising? It is truly unbelievable that a human being would pick up a gun, point it at another human being and pull the trigger.....over a tater tot.

You all have to admit, though, if you have seen "Napolean Dynamite" that this was the first thing that went through your head. Come on, admit it......

Friday, March 10, 2006

John Gotti, Jr. trial ends in a mistrial.

According to breaking news on ABC, John Gotti, Jr., 42, son of the late mobster John Gotti, has dodged prosecution again when the jury deadlocked for the second time and the judge declared a mistrial in his racketeering case. Also part of the case was his threats against Guardian Angel leader Curtis Sliwa.

Just in time for the weekend's season opener of "The Sopranos" on HBO. Go figure.

The Volunteer State joins South Dakota and Mississippi.... end abortion.

According to this article, the State Senate of Tennessee has passed a bill that would alter the Tennessee Constitution. The measure must pass the State Senate twice within two years before it can go before the people of the state of Tennessee. But this is a first step, and one that apparently has the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and many other lefties who have a staked interest in the abortion industry in a tizzy.

NTU spending study

An excellent study on spending can be found at the National Taxpayers Union website. According to the study, within the first seven months of the 109th Congress, NTUF identified 1,059 House and Senate bills with a budget impact of plus or minus $1 million.

Highlights of the study include:

-- Through the 2005 August recess, over 21 bills in the House were introduced to raise spending for every bill to lower spending. This is actually an improvement from the previous Congress (2003), during which the ratio was 23 to 1. In the Senate, 30 spending-hike bills were introduced for every spending-cut bill, worse than the 22 to 1 ratio in 2003.

-- The average House Republican's wish list would increase federal spending by a net $11.0 billion, half of what he or she proposed in 2003 but still a far cry from 1995's average of minus $18.2 billion. The typical GOP Senator advocated a $5.1 billion agenda, roughly one-fifth of what he or she sought in spending hikes during the opening of 2003.

-- The average House Democrat had a $444.7 billion agenda, the highest of any of the past seven Congresses. Senate Democrats, however, brought their average down to $34.3 billion, roughly one-third of 2003's level and the lowest since the 106th Congress (1999).

-- The number of lawmakers with higher-spending agendas ($100 billion or more) shrunk from 139 in the previous Congress to 75 in the current Congress. However, 82 Representatives and 75 Senators could not find a single bill to sponsor or cosponsor that would bring down federal outlays.

-- Democratic freshman lawmakers had far lower-cost spending agendas (half in the House and one-third less in the Senate) than their senior Democratic colleagues. Yet, the opposite was true for freshman GOP Representatives and Senators, who proposed over 50 percent and 10 percent more, respectively, than longer-serving Republicans.

-- House Members of both parties from liberal "blue states" had higher average agendas than their conservative "red state" colleagues, but in the Senate, the trend only held for Democrats.

So who exactly is the leader of the Democrat Party?

Best video/commercial the RNC has produced, ever. A must-see.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Three bags full.

Remember the "Baa baa Black Sheep" song and nursery rhyme?

"Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool? Yes, sir, yes, sir. Three bags full. One for the master, and one for the dame. And one for the little boy who lives down the lane. Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool? Yes, sir, yes, sir. Three bags full."

Well, political correctness has started to run amok in jolly old England as well. According to a story in BBC News on Wed., March 8th, two nurseries in Oxfordshire, England, changed the words to the song so that "black sheep" are now "rainbow sheep."

Apparently "black sheep" were deemed racially offensive.

The new version of the song has happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep. Thankfully, the insanity has not spread throughout the English countryside. In 2000, a ban on the song by the Birmingham City Council was scrapped when black parents "condemned" the ban as "ridiculous." Bravo.

Wild spring break holidays aren't great for women's health...or self-respect.

The annoying "Girls Gone Wild" commercials that run ad nauseum on late night television might just be more documentary than bizarre, rare occurrence. According to a new American Medical Association study, 83% of college women and graduates surveyed said that spring break involves "heavier-than-usual" drinking and 74% said that spring break is all about increased sexual activity.

The report documents the prevalence of getting sick from drinking, black outs, unprotected sex, sex with more than one partner, sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

Some of the specifics from the AMA report include:

-- 74% said girls use spring break drinking as an excuse for "outrageous behavior" such as public nudity and dancing on tables;

-- Of the 27% who said they had attended a college spring break trip....

-- More than half said they regretted getting sick from drinking....
-- About 40% said they regretted passing out or blacking out.....
-- 13% said they had engaged in sex with more than one partner....
-- 10% said they regretted engaging in public or group sexual activity....
-- More than half were underage when they drank alcohol on a spring break trip.

For all the "fun" that everyone seems to be having, there are an awful lot of regrets in that study as well.

Kids will always think that they are invincible and that nothing bad will ever happen to them. To put underage, drunk kids together in a tropical environment, having a popular culture that glorifies "if it feels good, do it" and a bunch of feminists running around that have convinced an entire generation of young women that the road to equality is in bedding down anyone who crosses your path, it is no wonder this study has the results that it does.

Besides getting sick drunk, blacking out and having random sex with multiple strangers, there could be some pretty awful things that result from all of this "spring break fun." At the very least, you will escape with a rotten hangover. But at the worst, lifetime consequences could devastate a young woman's life.

It is astounding how many young women believe that bedding down a stranger is the road to self-respect or equality with men. Going to bed with a man will NEVER cause them to call or start/continue a relationship. To do so with that as the goal is completely mindless. And even with a condom, many STDs that are lifetime accessories -- incurable -- can be your party favor from a spring break week that is nothing more than a fuzzy memory.

Amazingly, many young women really do believe they cannot get pregnant. They could not be more wrong. An OB-GYN friend of mine used to get asked all the time, "Could I be pregnant?" He would answer, "Have you been exposed?"

If you have been "exposed" you could be pregnant, no matter what "protection" you are using. The only 100% way to ensure you aren't pregnant is to not be "exposed". Pretty simple, but easily forgotten in a drunken stupor, apparently.

What is the least discussed, yet should be at the top of any spring break discussion is the escalating occurrence of kidnapping of young American women. There are stories across the globe of young women who are disappearing at record rates. Do not assume that it is because they have simply been raped, murdered and buried. An unfortunate new reality is the prevalence of sex trafficking.

Here's the scene: pretty, young, confident, American girl goes to tropical paradise for Spring Break. She gets drunk with her friends and meets a "nice guy" who offers to bring her back to the hotel. Friends go along with this because this is a regular occurrence back at home, unfortunately.

Pretty, young, confident, American girl is never seen again, but has made a trafficking kingpin a pretty profit because this profile is in high demand among the world's perverts.

Don't think it can happen? Check the papers sometime. It happens with greater frequency than is being discussed. And it is going to continue so long as young people believe that nothing can happen to them on a spring break holiday.

Parents, you have a responsibility here. If your teenager is not responsible enough at home in any way, sending them to a spring break location known for booze, sex and wildness could be the worst, most regretted decision you will ever make. In truth, they have the rest of their lives to travel and perhaps with a few years and experiences under their belts, they will be less likely to exhibit risky behavior. Showing up in "Girls Gone Wild" could be the least of their troubles. Spring Break ain't what it used to a long shot.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Chief Justice John Roberts...

.....Is starting to get pretty good's an LA Times story praising his ability to bring together what used to be an argumentative Court's a column from George Will who agrees with Roberts' approach in dealing with the terribly misguided law professors who banded together to ban military recruiters from college campuses. Bravo, Mr. Chief Justice.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006


If you have not yet gone to the voting booth today, you need to, particularly to vote for Don Willett for Texas Supreme Court Justice. If elected, he would take the seat vacated by Priscilla Owen who was elevated to the federal bench.....after a whole lot of wrangling, gnashing of teeth and an inexcusable filibuster from the obstructionists on the Left who apparently were determined to install a glass ceiling for women who don't kiss the feminists' collectivist ring.

At any rate, Don Willett has what it takes to be a judge -- temperament, character and a passion for the Constitution and his beloved state of Texas. Don possesses more integrity, patience and kindness than almost anyone I have had the privilege to meet in Washington, DC and his stellar career experience will serve the people of Texas well should he be elected in today's election.

No matter who it is, I have a great deal of respect for those who are willing to submit themselves to the kind of abuse that an election can put a candidate and his/her family through. Prayers for the Willett family today to give them peace on what has to be the longest day of their lives and many blessings to them in their new venture on the Texas Supreme Court.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Rounds has signed SD bill to abolish abortion.

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed a bill into law that will now abolish abortion (with exceptions, but nonetheless), saying, "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

This bill passed the legislature and before the ink had dried on the legislation, assorted leftist organizations, determined to keep their profit margin high and the numbers of "inconvenient babies" low, have already threatened lawsuits. It has never been clear to me, by the way, why these same leftists will go to the ends of the Earth to protect a death row inmate, but cannot bring themselves to do the same for a baby. They seem determined to save the guilty and exterminate the innocent.

There is an interesting debate in the pro-life community as to the timing of these bills given the challenges that will drag this all the way to the Supreme Court. Some believe that the South Dakota legislature should have waited and others believe that given the notion that at least one more Supreme Court Justice could be replaced during the Bush Administration. Given how long it takes to get a court case to and through the Supreme Court, it could take some considerable time to get to the highest court in the land.

Even if another SCOTUS confirmation battle isn't in the immediate future, it would seem that Chief Justice Roberts has quite a talent for mustering unanimous decisions since his tenure began on the Court on some hot-button issues.

Should judicial nominees participate in Senate confirmation hearings?

In the hard copy of this week's New Yorker magazine, author Janet Malcolm hits the nail on the head when she discusses the true nature of Supreme Court nomination hearings in her article entitled "The Art of Testifying." Malcolm says that the hearings reveal the nature of the Senators, not necessarily the nominees.

If you have ever actually been to a Supreme Court nomination, the theater that occurs inside the hearing room is nothing compared to the jockeying that takes place outside the hearing room. Inside the hearing room, all is scripted and carefully crafted. Outside, at the microphones, or "the sticks" as they are called, it is a bit more free-wheeling.

According to Malcolm's article, Senator Joe Biden has called for the abolition of Supreme Court confirmation hearings because, as Biden says, "when they are over, we know no more about the nominee's judicial philosophy than we did before they started."

Perhaps Biden ought to replace the words "judicial philosophy" with "politicial ideology."

Joe and his colleagues on the Left are far more interested in cementing an ideological litmus test on these nominees. Funny, he didn't seem to be terribly concerned about Ginsburg's political leanings as the former ACLU General Counsel.

And Senator Biden won the "It's All About Me" award for his performance during the Alito hearing week. Literally.

According to the press release, "Senator Joe Biden holds the record this week for asking the longest questions of the entire hearing, and that's saying something! In one thirty-minute session, Biden spoke for 24 minutes and Alito gave a six minute answer. In other words, "Enough about me, now, what did YOU think of my last question?" Biden also may hold a some kind of record for referring to himself once every 12 seconds, five times each minute, for a grand total of 360 times in 70 minutes of questioning. The donning of the Princeton cap deserves special mention in a fleeting attempt to obtain 'Visual of the Day.' "

No wonder he didn't learn anything about Sam Alito after a record-setting week of questions and answers. He just flat wasn't listening.

Those who are making every effort to put an ideological litmus test in place may not like the result of their efforts. The words "conservative" and "liberal" should not be applied to judicial nominees. It is a political categorization, not a judicial philosophy. Either a judge is an activist or he/she practices judicial restraint. Judicial activism, regardless of the political ideology behind it, has done more to damage jurisprudence than almost any other trend in the law -- although the application of foreign law to American cases runs a close second.

The practice of judicial nominees testifying before a Senate committee is an invention of the last century and given the way Senators have taken to treating nominees in the past quarter century, it would be understandable if the practice is done away with. It used to be considered unseemly for a judge to appear and participate in such a political environment. Perhaps it is time to consider that again.

Except that it is precisely because of the practice that judicial nominees have embraced -- refusing to talk to the press. White Houses long ago determined that talking to the media would not be helpful in any way and in fact, could harm a nomination, so judicial nominees are strongly encouraged not to talk to the media and nominees seem content with that. No doubt nominees' spouses would like to have a discussion with a few media outlets, but probably not for attribution.

Hearings, therefore, are basically the only time a nominee has the opportunity to present his/her "case" to the Senate, and more importantly, the American public. (Although the hearings probably have a lower viewership than the Academy Awards...) Nominees like John Roberts and Sam Alito made excellent presentations in the hearing room and gave credence to the rumors of their remarkable legal minds.

So while the Senators give canned, predictable speeches that accomplish little, at least the nominees have an opportunity to display their legal skills, demeanor and judicial philosophy without the filter of well-financed liberal organizations determined to shred reputations to score political points. That may just make the whole dog and pony show worthwhile.

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights.

This is the "military recruitment on college campuses" case that has now been unanimously decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the recruiters. Law school professors had banded together and claimed that they shouldn't be forced to "associate" with military recruiters so long as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is in effect.

For those who are going to try to blame this decision on Sam Alito, it should be noted that he did not participate in the decision because he wasn't on the bench when the case was heard. Chief Justice John Roberts did write the opinion. And again, a unanimous decision -- meaning Ginsburg and Breyer went along with it. Souter and Kennedy did as well. This must infuriate the extreme Left to no end. Apparently, this was not about politics but the Constitution. What a breath of fresh air!

The particular amendment passed by Congress that was challenged by these law school professors was the "Solomon Amendment", named for the late Gerald Solomon, a Marine-turned-Congressman who served from the state of New York. It requires that universities forfeit federal funds if they ban military recruiters on campus. Given that the life-blood of most universities is federal funding, the colleges squealed at the notion that the food in the trough would be taken away. An excellent decision.

Brokeback broke down.

It was a loooooooong night at the Kodak Theater last night. Despite the annointing of "Brokeback Mountain" as a movie that "broke barriers" (translated into "Oscar" means, "If you don't vote for this for Best Picture, you are clearly uneducated in What Really Matters in Film, are one of those uneducated Red State flyover state fools who probably voted for...Bush.....and are generally Not Cool.)

Having grown up in the shadow of the Hollywood sign ( Hancock Park), Oscar night is a huge deal. But Oscars didn't used to be about "breaking barriers", whatever that means. It used to be about an outstanding acting achievement, or going the extra mile with the details in Art Direction, Sets, Sound or Lights, developing some new technological advance that takes film to a new level, or writing an extraordinary, memorable script that withstands time. According to the critics, however, that sort of thing is not what the Academy is purported to be looking for.

Since the Village People did "YMCA", there have been folks who have decided that every cowboy is clearly homosexual. Apparently, these are people who have never met a cowboy and wouldn't know a real one if they met him. My grandfather, a fourth generation Texan, rode the Goodnight-Loving trail and was a cattle rancher. Every bit the cowboy. It wasn't what he wore, but his character that defined him. It is a tragedy that the American cowboy is being so deeply disrespected.

The bottom line is that "Brokeback Mountain" may have had some decent enough performances, but was it "On the Waterfront"? Not by a long shot. Clearly, despite the predictions of snooty critics who constantly tell America off, the Academy didn't do half bad in the choices. "Crash" was a pretty raw movie and it wouldn't have been my first choice, but the box office yielded some slim pickins in 2005.

This, I don't get. The Oscar for "Best Original Song" given to a little ditty entitled "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" -- a rap song about, oddly enough, how hard it is to be a pimp. Did it really capture the essence of the movie or was it just a song that sold well? The performances in
"Hustle and Flow" were truly remarkable, particularly that of Terrence Howard, and the song is far too one dimensional for his three dimensional performance in the film.

The Oscars I am thrilled about? Chronicles of Narnia (shout out to Walden Media!) and Reese Witherspoon (an amazing performance as June Carter Cash in "Walk the Line".....terribly disappointed that Joaquin Phoenix didn't take home the statue for his portrayal of Johnny Cash.)

So which films were you all rooting for? Do you think "Brokeback" got a raw deal? Were you rooting for Charlize or Felicity?

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Must read Immigration articles

WASHINGTON POST Immigration Bills May Split Republicans Immigration Confusion
WALL STREET JOURNAL Senate to Weigh Immigration Overhaul
USA TODAY In age of terror, U.S. fears tunnels pose bigger threat
WASHINGTON TIMES Violence on border at record high
HUMAN EVENTS Life Along the Border Is No Longer Safe (Cornyn Op-Ed)

Beware the Ides of March. Or Marching Ides. Whatever.

Hey, if Michael Moore is involved, it HAS to be a worthwhile effort, right? (sarcasm in full effect.)

UPJ web site, the group "Political Cooperative" is urging its members:

"TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM," Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation."

The message goes on to explain:

"We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer . . .
The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government."

The Political Cooperative goes so far as to announce its plans to install an interim government after the Bush administration is toppled:

"The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity."

Bush-bashing filmmaker Michael Moore apparently endorses the coup plan, linking to the "Storm the White House" message on his web site.

Do Dems REALLY care about port security?

Democrats Once Again Vote To Kill The PATRIOT Act
President Bush Advocates Passing The PATRIOT Act To Protect Americans:

President Bush: "[T]he PATRIOT Act is an important way to help connect the dots to protect the people." (President G. W. Bush, President Discusses Use And Reauthorization Of USA PATRIOT Act, Washington, D.C., 1/3/06)

President Bush: "The Senate Democratic leader boasted ... that the Senate Democrats had 'killed the PATRIOT Act.' Our Nation's security must be above partisan politics." (Office Of The Press Secretary, The White House, "President Pledges To Work With Congress To Re-Authorize PATRIOT Act," Press Release, 12/22/05)

President Bush: "The PATRIOT Act has helped us disrupt terrorist plots and break up cells here in the United States." (Office Of The Press Secretary, The White House, "President Pledges To Work With Congress To Re-Authorize PATRIOT Act," Press Release, 12/22/05)

President Bush: "The American people expect to be protected. And the PATRIOT Act is a really important tool for them to stay protected." (President G. W. Bush, President Discusses Use And Reauthorization Of USA PATRIOT Act, Washington, D.C., 1/3/06)

After Months Of Obstruction By Democrat Leaders, The Senate Passed The PATRIOT Act 89-10. (Laurie Kellman, "Senate Approves Patriot Act Renewal, Sends To House," The Associated Press, 3/2/06)

The PATRIOT Act Has Worked And Made America Safer:

"[I]ntelligence And Law Enforcement Communities, And Our Partners, Both Here And Abroad, Have Identified And Disrupted Over 150 Terrorist Threats And Cells." (Department Of Justice Website,, Accessed 12/16/05)

"Worldwide, Nearly Two-Thirds Of Al Qaida's Known Senior Leadership Has Been Captured Or Killed - Including A Mastermind Of The September 11th Attacks." (Department Of Justice Website,, Accessed 12/16/05)

"Worldwide, More Than 3,000 Operatives Have Been Incapacitated." (Department Of Justice Website,, Accessed 12/16/05)

"Five Terrorist Cells In Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), And Northern Virginia Have Been Broken Up." (Department Of Justice Website,, Accessed 12/16/05)

"401 Individuals Have Been Criminally Charged In The United States In Terrorism-Related Investigations." (Department Of Justice Website,, Accessed 12/16/05)

"Already, 212 Individuals Have Been Convicted Or Have Pleaded Guilty In The United States, Including Shoe-Bomber Richard Reid And 'American Taliban' John Walker Lindh." (Department Of Justice Website,, Accessed 12/16/05)

"Over 515 Individuals Linked To The September 11th Investigation Have Been Removed From The United States." (Department Of Justice Website,, Accessed 12/16/05)

Meanwhile, Many Senate Democrats Repeatedly Voted To "Kill" The PATRIOT Act:

March 1, 2006: 17 Democrats, Including Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Voted Against An Amendment To Make The PATRIOT Act Immediately Effective. (S.2271, CQ Vote #24: Adopted 81-18: R 55-0; D 26-17; I 0-1, 3/1/06, Sen. Reid Voted Nay)

March 1, 2006: 14 Democrats Vote To Kill The PATRIOT Act. (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #28: Motion Agreed To 84-15: R 55-0; D 29-14; I 0-1, 3/1/06)

February 28, 2006: 29 Democrats, Including Leader Reid Vote Again To Kill The PATRIOT Act. (S. 2271, CQ Vote #23: Motion Agreed To 69-30: R 54-0; D 14-29; I 0-1, 2/28/06, Sen. Reid Voted Nay)

Sen. Reid (D-NV): "I'm going to vote against cloture." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, 2/28/06)

December 16, 2005: Over 40 Dems Vote To Kill The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #358: Motion Rejected 52-47: R 50-5; D 2-41; I 0-1, 12/16/05)

"'We Killed The PATRIOT Act,' Boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, To Cheers From A Crowd At A Political Rally After The Vote." (Charles Hurt, "Patriot Act Extension Filibustered," The Washington Times, 12/17/05)

o Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "We defeated that conference report and we did it purposely ..." (Sen. Reid, Floor Statement, 3/2/06)

o Fox News' Chris Wallace: "Senator, is [killing the PATRIOT Act] really something to celebrate?" Reid: "Of course it is." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 12/18/05)

o Click Here To Watch The Video Of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) As He Celebrates The Killing Of The PATRIOT Act.

Dubai and trafficking?

The Dubai issue is still a hotbed of controversy. While I still think there is a distinct possibility that this whole thing came up because the Administration wanted to get the Patriot Act passed and bust the Democratic filibuster. After all, what better way to test the new-found Democratic support for anti-terror legislation and tighter port security housed in several Patriot Act provisions?

But the most troubling aspect of the Dubai issue is the trafficking trade. They are well known by those who study the issue, for being a center for commerce for trafficked women -- both a destination point and a route. Naturally, they refuse to answer pointed questions on the subject.

State Department trafficking guru John Miller just visited Dubai and made an effort, according to my sources, to bring this issue up.

Another source has told me that the Dubai embassy here in DC employed a fellow who was apparently caught about a year ago doing trafficking here. Even committing acts of rape and assault personally. He was quietly deported after the story broke on the evening news and has since disappeared.

So what does Bill Clinton's supporter (from the previous post, below) have to say about things like money laundering, human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation? Trafficking, money laundering, drug & gun running -- it all goes hand in hand with terrorism. Sure is a lot of money in trafficking.

Who is Ron Burkle?

Someone who, according to Lloyd Grove, may just be at the heart of the difference of opinion in the Clinton household on the Dubai ports issue.

Alito's thank you note to Dobson -- the horror!

Well, well, well. Looks like PFAW's favorite legal ethicist, Stephen Gillers, is back to comment on a thank you note that Justice Samuel Alito wrote to Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family.

The thank-you note is standard fare, quite frankly.

But given the overreaction by the left, it is clear that either thank-you notes are entirely foreign to leftists, which would not surprise me, or, as usual, they have decided to read into this letter a meaning that just isn't there.

Apparently, what really has them upset, is phrase about the trust that has been placed in him with this appointment. The leftists really believe that because of that phrase, Sam Alito is some kind of Supreme Court version of a "Manchurian Candidate", ready to execute some dastardly plan. They could not be more wrong.

Sam Alito is a strict constructionist who embraces the Constitution first and foremost. This is someone who, as a Justice who practices judicial restraint, is not going to run pell-mell into some kind of conservative judicial activist agenda, whatever that is. An inconvenient fact for the left seems to be the idea that judicial activism resides on the left -- it is leftist cases that have departed from Constitutional principles. The Left invented penumbras and dearly love to discover new ways to "emanate" in them. This is what frightens the Left -- a Supreme Court Justice that won't kiss the ring of leftists and emanate in the newest penumbras, but instead will actually apply the Constitution as it is written. The horror!

A couple of points:

-- Do a search sometime on Stephen Gillers. He comments on all things having to do with judicial nominees, clearly at the request of PFAW. Clearly, PFAW believes that trotting out so-called "legal ethicists" will have some effect on the perception of their latest target.

-- Does anyone really believe that a NY Times reporter was sitting around listening to Dr. Dobson's program? How did the reporter come to learn about this radio show of Dobson's in which the letter was mentioned? Anyone want to bet that it was PFAW or Alliance for Justice that dropped this so-called "bombshell" to this reporter?

-- Someone please tell me why it is a big deal that Alito thanked Focus on the Family for their work on his nomination in the first place. Was this some sort of secret that FOTF was in favor of Alito's nomination? Furthermore, why shouldn't Alito have a cadre of supporters? After all, judicial nominees are not allowed to say word one to the press and for the honor that is bestowed upon them by the President of the United States, they get to wake up every morning to a news outlet publishing the latest wrong bit of information or twisted press release that some leftist bend on destroying the reputation of anyone that doesn't embrace a liberal philosophy has tossed out there for all to see. Since judicial nominees aren't allowed to respond until their hearing date, what is wrong with organizations defending a nominee they believe in? Are we to believe that Ralph Neas or Nan Aron do not have any thank you notes in their offices from federal judicial nominees like, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? If not, then my theory stands about leftists and social graces. Anything traditional is clearly tossed aside.

-- If you want to see the tone of the usual hate mail received by anyone who disagrees with the left, check this out. I have never understood the affection the left has for four letter words. Do they think they sound tough? Resolute? Intelligent?

Bottom line here is that the extremist left-wing organizations, bent on destroying Alito and Roberts, are setting the stage and gearing up for what they consider to be the mother of all judicial nominations battle -- the next open seat. Mark my words, here. You think these folks were nasty before? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

A walkout in Aurora, CO

Kids at a high school in Aurora, upset that a beloved teacher was put on suspension for comparing President Bush to Hitler, are walking out of their classes. The young man who taped this teacher, Sean Allen, did not go to school today, afraid for his life.

Clearly, this is a school where the kids may be better off NOT going to class. Sean is receiving threats and typical of high school, the kids are spreading rumors that just aren't so.

Sean needs to do three things here:

1) Stay tough. He has taken a bold stand and with bold stands come great difficulties. It is far easier to sit in class and absorb things a teacher says as gospel truth and never disagree. Ironically, in the tape, this teacher was asking his students to "think past what they are being told". What this teacher doesn't seem to understand is that high school is the place where one learns critical thinking skills -- that is, if it is a school that is worth a darn. These kids are clearly not equipped to think past anything this teacher said and Sean was exactly right to call him on it.

2) Sean needs to get in contact with David Horowitz, author of "The Professors", publisher of Front Page Magazine ( and founder of several organizations that assist students who are surviving outrageously liberal professors. Sean also needs to pick up a copy of "The Professors".

3) Sean needs to understand that whatever he is experiencing in this Aurora, CO, high school, it could be 100 times worse in college. As a graduate/survivor of the Univerity of California system, I can attest to the horrifying daily grind -- not in terms of academics, but just getting through with one's core beliefs intact. At least once a week, sometimes more often, my professors wouldn't merely challenge my beliefs, they would get downright hostile about it. Those who have been through it know exactly what I am talking about here. Maybe Hillsdale College?

It was easy to see that the pressure was starting to get to Sean in his Fox News interview a little while ago. He was defensive about his actions and was answering the flood of hate mail he had been receiving from students who worshipped this teacher. No doubt Sean didn't think this would escalate to this point. Doesn't matter. Sean Allen did the right thing and he shouldn't be intimidated in the least for standing up for his beliefs.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Mississippi Senate bill 2922

"A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state. The only exception would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest."


"The revised bill moves to the full House for consideration. Holland says a vote could come by next week. "

Ave Maria, Florida, is in the ACLU crosshairs

This should be fascinating to watch. The ACLU hasn't made a peep over the idea that President Bush wants to rebuild the so-called "Golden Mosque" over in Baghdad which was toppled by a terrorist's bomb. As I said in an earlier post, unless the President is going to whip out his personal Platinum American Express, the funds to build this religious building will come from the US Treasury.

Never fear, however, the ACLU's definition of "separation of church and state" is fully intact. They now have panties fully in a wad over Domino's Pizza king Tom Monaghan and his plans to build an "all-Catholic" town in Florida. Interesting concept. He's got the money to do it. So why not? Because the ACLU says he can't.

So let's review. ACLU thinks it is fine for the government to rebuild a mosque, which has, I suppose, religious things going on inside of it. But it isn't ok for some devoted Catholic to build a town devoted to all things Catholic, with his own dinero.

It must be a convenient world the ACLU lives in, where everything they do is so justified. They are not going to be happy until every vestige of Christianity is wiped from the face of the earth.

We've done been played, friends. Best Rope-A-Dope EVER.

Beautifully, too. There is no doubt that there are folks who saw this coming and popped some corn and watched it happen. Wonder if Karl likes extra butter?

My hat is off for this one, though. Brilliantly executed.

This whole ports hysteria? What if I were to tell you that it was a heck of a great shoehorn to get the Patriot Act passed. Heck of a gamble, but think about it.

Some of the major provisions of the Patriot Act deal with port security issues. For example:

The Patriot Act Contains Bipartisan Port Security Provisions. Title III of the Patriot Act Conference Report – known as the “Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America’s Seaports Act of 2005” – takes tangible steps to improve our nation’s port security and thwart terrorist attacks. Some of the specific measures address:

-- Seaport Entry by False Pretenses. It is a federal crime to use fraud or false pretenses to enter federal property, a vessel or aircraft of the United States, or the secured area in an airport. Section 302 expands this law to cover America’s ports and increases the penalty for violations.

-- Obstructing Law Enforcement Inspections. Section 303 establishes a new, general federal crime to forcibly interfere with the boarding of the vessel by federal law enforcement or resist arrest, or to provide boarding federal law enforcement officers with false information concerning the vessel’s cargo, origin, destination, registration, ownership, nationality or crew.

-- Terrorist Attacks on Passenger Vessels. Section 304 adds “passenger vessels” to the forms of mass transit protected against terrorist attacks under Federal Law.

-- Interference with Maritime Commerce. Section 305 establishes a new crime, under which it is a federal crime punishable by imprisonment for any term of years or for life (or the death penalty if death results) to place a dangerous substance or device in the navigable waters of the United States with the intent to damage a vessel or its cargo or to interfere with maritime commerce.

-- Transporting Dangerous Materials. Section 306 establishes a new federal offense against the transportation of explosives, biological, chemical, radioactive weapons, or nuclear material aboard a vessel in the United States, in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction, on the high seas, or aboard a vessel of the United States. The crime is punishable by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and may be punishable by death if death results from commission of the offense.

-- Transporting Terrorists. Section 306 also creates a new federal offense for transporting an individual knowing he intends to commit, or is fleeing from the commission of, a federal crime of terrorism.

-- Interference With Maritime Navigation. Section 307 makes violence (committed, attempted or conspired) against vessels or their facilities punishable by imprisonment for any term of years or for life if the offense involves a vessel carrying high level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel; if death results, by imprisonment for any term of years or by death.

-- Port Security Bribery. Section 311 makes it a federal crime to bribe any individual (private or public) within any secure or restricted area or seaport with the intent to commit international or domestic terrorism.

Let's set the stage here. Big political uproar all of a sudden happens in the vacuum of a very slow news month, all about port security. This, of course, happens RIGHT after the Democrats block the Patriot Act. Dems run around screeching about port security and Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton are particularly preening in the media klieg lights, thrilled that they see "daylight" on an issue that has long been considered the property of Republicans -- national security.

Republicans also run around about the ports, port security, etc. Good opportunity to show a little feisty independence.

Patriot Act comes up again and what do you know, it passes, despite Democratic objections. Because nervous Dems (perhaps with an uncertain election in their future) now see the importance of port security, having gone way, way out on a limb, becoming port hawks. So just enough votes are peeled off to break the clutches of the filibuster and bust the cloture vote wide open. After all of their hysteria about national security, it is a bit hypocritical to deny the bill that would close the loopholes at the ports (with the exception of the Teamsters who are the ones who really run the ports....which is, of course, probably the main reason for the Democrats reaction in the first place....keep the Teamsters main source of cash flowin'! Or else.)

This was the Democrats' tune in December, drunk with power over filibustering the Patriot Act:

In December, Forty-One Democrats Voted To Filibuster The Patriot Act. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the conference report on the bill that would reauthorize the Patriot Act…” (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #358: Motion Rejected 52-47: R 50-5; D 2-41; I 0-1, 12/16/05)

Minority Leader Harry Reid Rejoiced: “We Killed The Patriot Act.” “[I]n a Democratic rally after the vote, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada took a more defiant tone. ‘We killed the Patriot Act,’ Reid declared to loud applause.” (James Kuhnhenn, “Senate Thwarts Patriot Act Vote,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/17/05)

“Of Course” Killing The Patriot Act Was Cause For Celebration, According To Reid. FOX’s CHRIS WALLACE: “Senator, is [killing the Patriot Act] really something to celebrate?” REID: “Of course it is.” (“Fox News Sunday,” 12/18/05)

No doubt, I could be wrong here. But I'll tell you this -- the whole port security crisis didn't have the feel of a lobbying effort from the White House. There are a whole bunch of different signs when the White House really, really wants to convince a whole bunch of Republicans of something.

This was deliberate, my friends. Brilliant and deliberate. No doubt, there was a bit of a risk here, but the goal was clearly to pass the Patriot Act.

Like I said, I could be wrong here. But I have a strong feeling that I'm not. :)

Mrs. Smith goes to Washington.....

It just has to be a sad state of affairs inside the Beltway when Anna Nicole Smith gets top billing in the news today. Literally, every television station was all a-twitter at the idea that ANS was going to walk up the steps of the Supreme Court. Fox News even did an "Anna Preview" -- showing the actual SCOTUS steps the night before she walked up them.

Definitely a slow newsday.

Or is it that once again, Hollywood stardom outshines DC wonkdom? This article probably, sadly, nails it.

Clearly, we are sliding at full speed into Gomorrah when Anna Nicole Smith is recognized by 57% of Americans and Chief Justice John Roberts has a 16% recognition factor. Sigh.