Links Contact Us


Friday, June 30, 2006

Hamdan: Is anyone starting to get the picture here?

We might just look back at yesterday's Supreme Court decision as a
watershed moment for the security of this country.

With the goody bag that government has become, I think that folks
have truly lost sight of what governments were created to do.

The first duty of government is the public defense. It is why
governments have been created throughout history and this
country is no exception. The government was created to defend
its citizenry from predators both foreign and domestic. If that
cannot be done well then how are we to expect success with
anything else government does?

When we become a country that cares more about the rights of
people who have demonstrated a willingness to do anything to
kill us over our own soldiers and citizenry, then we have a serious
problem.

The decision is a complicated one, and I would recommend
you read up on it at the Heritage Foundation . It is true that a
roadmap for Congress was provided within the decision, but
here is the problem -- there are fewer Members of Congress who
have served in the military than ever before in history. Their
approach to this CANNOT be a law enforcement solution.

These people are not gangbangers selling drugs and guns. They
were put into detention facilities off of a battlefield in a war zone...
trained in military tactics to kill our soldiers or to commit acts of
terror.

Ann Coulter was correct when she said the other day "Thank God
this didn't happen in World War II."

Amen.

I know the stories well from WWII because of my father, who was
an OSS agent. They had.....special ways.....of handling problems.
And thank God, indeed.

There are things that happen every day in the course of protecting
our nation from harm that the public would not want to hear about.
It ain't pretty, the job of protecting our country. But the outcry after
9/11 sure was a different tune, now wasn't it?

To the people who soil their hands every day with the unpleasantness of
protecting this country -- THANK YOU. And it would appear that your
job may get tougher in the coming years, thanks to the Supreme Court.

Anyone starting to catch on that the courts really are relevant to our
lives and who sits on the bench is critical to almost any issue we care
about -- including terrorism?

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

So here's the new batch of judicial nominees.

Debra Ann Livingston, of New York, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the Second Circuit, vice John M. Walker, Jr., retiring.

Kent A. Jordan, of Delaware, to be United States Circuit Judge
for the Third Circuit, vice Jane R. Roth, retired.

Raymond M. Kethledge, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the Sixth Circuit, vice James L. Ryan, retired.

Stephen Joseph Murphy III, of Michigan, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, vice Susan Bieke Neilson, deceased.

John A. Jarvey, of Iowa, to be United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, vice Ronald E. Longstaff, retiring.

Robert James Jonker, of Michigan, to be United States District
Judge for the Western District of Michigan, vice Gordon J. Quist, retired.

Paul Lewis Maloney, of Michigan, to be United States District
Judge for the Western District of Michigan, vice Richard A. Enslen, retired.

Janet T. Neff, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge
for the Western District of Michigan, vice David W. McKeague, elevated.
Mary O. Donohue, of New York, to be United States District Judge
for the Northern District of New York, vice Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., retired.

John Preston Bailey, of West Virginia, to be United States District
Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, vice Frederick P.
Stamp, Jr., retiring.

Is there any doubt?

"Abortion is sacrament and Roe v. Wade is Holy Writ.
This is why we have to have World War III every time
there's an opening on the Supreme Court."
-- Ann Coulter, "Godless"

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Supreme Court decisions yesterday

All eyes are still on the court for two potentially politically
explosive decisions from the nation's highest Court in the coming
week.....a decision in the Texas redistricting case and whether
or not any of the Justices has "retirement fever."

Five decisions were handed down on Monday and the most
interesting was the Vermont decision.

But here is the analysis from the brilliant folks at the Heritage
Foundation:

The Supreme Court decided 5 cases today. The 5 cases decided
today addressed campaign finance regulations (Randall), the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (Murphy), the death penalty
(Marsh), a defendant’s right to counsel (Gonzalez-Lopez), and
the impact of a failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury
(Recuenco).

Note: There are 5 more cases to be decided before the Court
adjourns, including Hamdan and the Texas redistricting case.
The Court will convene next on Wednesday morning.

All opinions are available here:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html. (If you read only
one opinion, read Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Marsh, in which
he simply obliterates many of the erroneous factual claims that
death penalty opponents have been making over the past 20
years.)

Re: RANDALL v. SORRELL, No. 04-1528 (consolidated
with SORRELL v. RANDALL, No. 04-1697; VERMONT
REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE v. SORRELL, No. 04-1530)
KANSAS v. MARSH, No. 04-1170 U.S. v. GOZALEZ-LOPEZ,
No. 05-352 WASHINGTON v. RECUENCO, No. 05-83
ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. v. MURPHY,
No. 05-18
RANDALL. In a fractured decision involving three
consolidated cases, the Court struck down several key
provisions of the Vermont campaign finance statute,
“Act 64.” There were a total of four opinions for the six
justices in the majority and two for the three dissenting
justices. Vermont’s limits on campaign donations and
campaign spending were among the strictest in the nation.
Breyer wrote the plurality opinion, in most of which the
Chief and Alito joined, concluding that Act 64’s expenditure
limits violate the First Amendment as set forth in BUCKLEY
v. VALEO (the Court was urged to overturn its reasoning in
BUCKLEY). Kennedy concurred only in the judgment
because of his declared skepticism with much of the Court’s
campaign finance jurisprudence, including McCONNELL v.
FEC. Thomas (with Scalia) wrote an opinion declaring he would
not base his decision on BUCKLEY because he thought
BUCKLEY insufficiently protective of political speech. They
would apply strict scrutiny to Act 64 and similar statutes.
Stevens’s dissent states that the Court incorrectly equated
money and speech, and he would conclude that the state’s
actions are justified as a means to reduce fundraising efforts,
curb corruption, and protect equal access to the political arena.
Souter’s dissent (joined by Stevens) would conclude that the
contribution limits in this case are not so low as to impinge on
rights of speech and association, especially in comparison to
similar limits previously upheld by the Court.

MARSH. The Court held 5-4 that a Kansas death penalty
statute is not unconstitutional on the ground that it mandates
the death sentence even if the aggravating factors are not
outweighed by the mitigating factors – i.e., if the aggravating
and mitigating factors are in equipoise. Thomas’s majority
opinion concludes that the question is controlled by WALTON
(addressing an Arizona death penalty statute that was virtually
identical in relevant respects). Scalia’s concurrence defends
the Court’s grant of cert. as a measure to defend states’
sentencing rights and responds at length to the arguments
in Souter’s dissent (joined by Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg)
that the death penalty is bad policy and unjust. Stevens’s
dissent argues that WALTON is not controlling.

GONZALEZ-LOPEZ. Scalia wrote a 5-4 opinion affirming
the Eighth Circuit, which had vacated Gonzalez-Lopez’s
conviction because he had been denied the counsel of his
choice. The government conceded that the district court
had erred when it refused to admit the attorney pro hac
vice, and the Court emphasized that its decision is not
intended to have any effect on a court’s power to regulate
admissions and practice before it. The Court rejected the
government’s position that the defendant must show that
the attorney who was not his counsel of choice was
ineffective under STRICKLAND as well as the dissent’s
view that the defendant must show an “identifiable
difference” in the quality of the legal representation he
was provided. The Sixth Amendment “commands, not
that a trial be fair, but that a particular guarantee of
fairness be provided—to wit, that the accused be defended
by the counsel he believes to be the best.” The Chief,
Kennedy, and Thomas joined Alito’s dissenting opinion.

RECUENCO. Under APPRENDI and BLAKELY, a failure
to submit a sentencing factor to the jury is constitutional
error. In a 7-2 opinion authored by Thomas, the Court
held that such “Blakely errors” are not “structural” and
may be reviewed for harmless error. The Court thus
reversed the Supreme Court of Washington. Kennedy
wrote a one-paragraph concurrence, and Stevens wrote
a short dissent suggesting that the Washington supreme
court could choose to reinstate its decision on state-law
grounds. Stevens also joined Ginsburg’s dissent.

ARLINGTON. In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court
disagreed with the Second Circuit and held that prevailing
parents in a proceeding under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were not authorized
to receive a reimbursement of expert fees. The majority
opinion found that the text of the statute, in
20 U.S.C. §1415(i)(3)(B), allowed for the recovery of “costs”
which as a term of art does not generally include expert fees.
The text also fails to provide clear notice for the state required
under the Spending Clause. The majority found additional
support in its decisions in CRAWFORD FILING and CASEY
which support the principle that no statute will be construed
to authorize taxation of witness fees as costs unless it does
so explicitly. The Second Circuit misunderstood the meaning
of the footnote from CASEY on which it relied. Ginsburg
concurred in part and concurred in the judgment, expressing
her disagreement with the majority’s use of the “clear notice
requirement” in this case. Breyer, joined by Stevens and Souter,
dissented.

If you want more commentary and analysis, see http://electionlawblog.org/archives/006026.html
(for the campaign finance case) or http://www.scotusblog.com/
movabletype/archives/2006/06/news_on_todays.html

(generally). Another good source throughout the day is
http://howappealing.law.com/.

Keep him busy, Mrs. Biden. For the good of the nation.

From ABC News "The Note":

First the quote: ""I'd rather be at home making love to my wife
while my children are asleep." Now the context: Sen. Joseph Biden
(D-DE) seems "plenty interested" in the White House in 2008, but
he claims that despite his confidence to execute the office of the
President of the United States, he could do without the job
itself. LINK

Sunday, June 18, 2006

These Chicks needs to visit Arlington National Cemetery

The Dixie Chicks, not content with upsetting a majority of their fans with
their leftist garbage, are now showing the results of not studying history.

Check this out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/
06/15/bmdixie15.xml


Honest to God, this is the kind of thing that makes me cringe. Spoiled brats
who don't look up from the trough long enough to see where the blessings
of liberty truly come from. Exactly why this country is free and why
they should care has apparently eluded these brain surgeons.

Ok, fine. So the Dixie Chicks don't like the President. Free country. No thanks
to any contribution of the Dixie Chicks, but they do enjoy the benefits of it.

But to question why someone is even patriotic in the first place?

And where does this complete lack of gratitude come from? A complete lack
of knowledge of history. Or the only exposure to history in schools these days
is the revisionist garbage spoon fed to malleable minds who are more concerned
about boyfriends, clothes, cell phones, text messaging, where the party is on
Friday night and their website on My Space.

Pathetic.

Acres and acres of people who gave their lives and these goofy gals can't
understand patriotism. They are embarrassed that the President is from Texas?
I'm embarrassed these overpaid loudmouths are Americans.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

It has been a busy week.

So many liberals to drive crazy, so little time......
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061506
/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

Friday, June 09, 2006

Liberals -- go to Vegas. Stay there. Please.

Check this out -- "The Yearly Kos convention"

Harry Reid giving a keynoter. Ralph Neas hosting a roundtable about judges/Supreme Court. Michael Schaivo on a panel about privacy.

Doesn't get any better than this, does it? Wall to wall liberals/marxists/Halliburton experts.... And all in Vegas to boot. Too bad what GOES to Vegas can't STAY in Vegas.

At any rate. Thought you all might want to check out this liberal confab -- hosted by, of course, DAILY KOS! (Clearly an idea from his extremely disappointed book publisher.)

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Al Zarqawi has been terminated.

Top terrorist in Iraq, was taken out by two 500-lb bombs that hit his hideout. Responsible for the strategy -- and in many cases, the direct murder and maiming of our military personnel, the evil beheading of hostages that he personally performed and the cold-blooded murder of Iraqis who were trying to build their nation.

Best news we have had in a very, very long time.

God bless the US Special Forces, our US military and those who gave us the intel to get it done.

Monday, June 05, 2006

06-06-06

The sixth day of the sixth month of the sixth year. 6-6-6.

Is tomorrow the end of the world? The Apocolypse? Or merely the release date of the remake of the "Omen" movie?

The Washington Times and Breitbart speculate.

Give that boy an NEA grant!

World Net Daily has the story today of the current issue of
the official Hamas weekly newspaper which features a cartoon of a
Palestinian child urinating on the Statue of Liberty, which is
holding abook labeled "Democracy."

The cartoon in Al-Risala is typical of the visual and verbal attacks
on U.S. symbols often seen in Palestinian Authority publications,
says the Israel-based monitor Palestinian Media Watch.

Didn't Robert Mapplethorpe make a fortune with his taxpayer-
funded depiction of a crucifix in a jar of urine -- crudely entitled
"P(*$& Christ".

Guess this would be titled "P($& on Freedom" and apparently it is
fine by the MSM over here.

Two year anniversary of Ronald Reagan's passing.

And we still miss him.

For an excellent tribute to President Reagan go here and for one of the best, most comprehensive resources on President Reagan, go here. And last, but not least, the
very worthy efforts of the Reagan Legacy Project should be supported, and continued.

Continued prayers for his family. staff and close friends who loved him and prayers for the nation that he loved.

Reid, Thy Name is Hypocrisy...

Check this out -- Reid (and his Democratic lemmings....) are
screeching about the idea of one man, one woman marriage.

Wonder if Harry told his buddies in the Democratic Caucus
that he once "voted for bigotry" as Kennedy puts it, by voting
himself for traditional marriage.

Check this out:

Democrats Attack Majority Of Americans, Display Stunning
Hypocrisy On Gay Marriage

Democrats Viciously Attack Those Supporting Defense Of
Traditional Marriage…

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): Anyone Voting To Protect
Traditional Marriage Is Voting “For Bigotry.” “‘A vote for this
amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,’ said
Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts,
where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in
2003.” (Laurie Kellman, “Senate To Tackle Gay Marriage
Ban,” The Associated Press, 6/5/06)

DNC Chairman Howard Dean Has Called The Effort
“Hateful.” DEAN: “Democrats are committed to fighting
this hateful, divisive amendment and to fighting similarly
discriminatory ballot initiatives in states across the country.
We strongly oppose any attempt to write discrimination
into law – whether it be at the local or state levels or in
the United States Constitution.” (Democratic National
Committee, Press Release, 6/1/06)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): Supporters Of Marriage
Protection Amendment Want To “Write Discrimination
Into The Constitution.” REID: “Senator Frist has chosen
to put the politics of division ahead of real progress by
pushing for a debate on a divisive amendment that will
write discrimination into the constitution.” (Friends For
Harry Reid Website, www.giveemhellharry.com,
Accessed 6/1/06)

…But Minority Leader Reid Supported A Constitutional
Amendment Protecting Traditional Marriage In Nevada

Reid Backed A Nevada Constitutional Amendment
Defining Marriage As The Union Of A Man And A
Woman. “Reid said he is opposed to gay marriage but
does not support a proposal by President Bush that
would amend the U.S. Constitution to restrict marriage
to two people of the opposite sex. … Reid supported a
Nevada constitutional amendment that restricts marriage
to opposite-sex couples.” (Tony Batt, “Reid Comfortable
With Fund-Raiser,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 5/14/04)

Reid Strongly Backed The Amendment And Stressed
His Opposition To Gay Marriage. “Reid’s campaign insists
he’s been 100 percent supportive of Question 2 [Nevada’s
state amendment] and steadfast against gay marriage all
along. … Reid, [his campaign manager] insists, has always
been consistent in opposing gay marriage.” (Steve Sebelius,
“Where Does Reid Stand?” Las Vegas Review-Journal,
2/19/04)

By His Own Definition, Should Reid Accuse Himself
Of Voting For “Discrimination”? REID: “I’m
personally opposed to same-sex marriage. I think
a marriage should be between a man and woman.”
(Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,”
11/25/04)

Ask Reid: Do Most Nevadans Practice “Discrimination”?

2000: 70% Of Nevadans Approved A Constitutional
Amendment Protecting Traditional Marriage. “Voters
overwhelmingly approved the most contentious ballot
issue, with seven of every 10 voters approving
Question 2, which places a statutory prohibition on
gay marriages in the Nevada Constitution.” (Brendan
Riley, “Nevadans Elect GOP Senator, Congressman,”
The Associated Press, 11/8/00)

2002: 67% Of Nevadans Voted To Further Amend
Their Constitution And Strengthen Their Defense Of
Traditional Marriage. “Nevada statutes already forbid
gay marriages but statewide ballot Question 2 amends
the Nevada Constitution to make clear that nontraditional
marriages performed in other states wouldn’t be recognized
in Nevada. It had passed by a margin of 67 percent to
33 percent with four-fifths of the ballots counted.” (Scott
Sonner, “Republicans Nearly Sweep Nevada,” The
Associated Press, 11/6/02)

Are Solid Majorities In Diverse States “Hateful” Or “Bigoted”?

Forty-Five States Have Guidelines Defending The Union
Of A Man And A Woman. PRESIDENT BUSH: “[T]oday,
45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional
amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of
a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express
a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution
of marriage.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address,
6/3/06)

Nineteen States Have Codified The Definition Of Marriage
In Their State Constitutions. (Shaila Dewan, “Same-Sex
Marriage Amendment Is Struck Down By Georgia Judge,”
The New York Times, 5/17/06)

Two-Thirds Popular Support Is Considered “Typical”
For Constitutional Amendments Defending Marriage.
“Referendums in defense of man-woman unions have
won approval in every state they’ve appeared, typically
by two-thirds or more of those voting.” (Eric Krol, “Gay
Ballot Item Could Stir Fall Vote,” Chicago Daily Herald,
5/9/06)

Protecting Marriage Is An Immediate Concern In
States Across The Country

Nine States Are Currently Experiencing Court Challenges
To State-Level Gay Marriage Bans. “[S]upporters of a
constitutional amendment say that activist judges are a
threat to state bans. Court challenges to state-level bans
are pending in nine states. Judges recently tossed bans
in Georgia and Nebraska.” (Matt Stearns, “Gay Marriage
Ban Back On Agenda,” The Kansas City Star, 6/4/06)

Thirteen States Approved Traditional Marriage
Initiatives In 2004 – And More Are Lined Up To
Vote This Year. “This November, initiatives banning
same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot
in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Virginia and Wisconsin. In 2004, 13 states approved
initiatives prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions,
with 11 states casting votes on Election Day.” (Nedra
Pickler, “Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay
Marriage,” The Associated Press, 6/3/06)

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Glad they like the ad.....

The infamous "Twighlight Zone" ad from the Vernon Robinson has now hit Wonkette -- TWO YEARS after it ran. Good heavens, I thought it would never catch on.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/vernon-robinson/vernon-robinsons-tv-ad-making-sense-is-for-commie-homo-immigrants-177513.php

They seemed to like the Mariachi radio ad as well. Bit of a debate going on as to which they like better. I'm slightly more partial to the television ad, which was the last campaign in 2004 -- I also like the radio ad from 2004 on immigration. The radio ad is from the current 2006 campaign against Brad Miller -- who? you ask....don't worry. Lots of folks haven't the slightest idea who he is. Doesn't do much in Congress.

At any rate, I'd watch this match-up if I were you all. It is going to get good, trust me on this one. And if you happen to want to help it along, go to www.vernonrobinson.com and give what you can.

Apparently there is lots more where that came from.