Dipping My Toes Into Politics

Charles Rust-Tierney, Former President of the VA-ACLU (currently a Youth Coach), Charged With Child Porn Possession

2007-02-24T14:55:00.000-08:00

Youth Coach Charged With Child Porn Possession

Feb 23rd 2007- 6:27pm

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A youth sports coach in Arlington County who is also a past president of Virginia's American Civil Liberties Union chapter was arrested Friday and charged with receiving and possessing child pornography.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington, made an initial appearance Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria and was detained pending a preliminary hearing Wednesday.

It was unclear Friday whether he had an attorney. A call to his home went unanswered.

A federal agent said in a sworn affidavit Friday that Rust-Tierney has subscribed to various child-pornography Web sites the past several years.

The affidavit states that Rust-Tierney also admitted to an agent Friday that he has downloaded videos and photos, which were found in a search of his home, from child porn sites.

Arlington police are continuing their investigation and seeking information from the public on the case.

Newsletters on the ACLU chapter's Web site indicate Rust-Tierney served as president from 2002 through 2005.

Liberals will not be at all outraged at this man's admission of buying and possessing child pornography and will most likely defend him, make excuses for him, or dismiss this arrest as "another one of those things."

Is this why The ACLU fights so diligently to protect the "rights" of pedophiles and pornographers? Is Rust-Tierney the reason? To protect him? And others in the ACLU like Rust-Tierney? Perhaps this is something to consider.

Prognostication: The liberal media will, in no way and at no time, depict this man as the monster he is and will downplay the arrest at every opportunity.

Because he is the former president of the VA-ACLU, this story will be relegated to the "lesser" pages of the printed media and will most likely be glossed over in a 15-second sound byte, if mentioned at all, on the television news.

Because his wife is someone of import, Diann Rust-Tierney of The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty from the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which she has directed since 1991, and as she is sympathetic to child predators, molesters, and rapists and assists them in avoiding the death penalty, it is even more important the liberal media "hide" this arrest from the public at large.

Mr. Rust-Tierney was found to have, and admitted having, pornographic videos of very underage girls that were tied up, crying and screaming, and being forcibly raped. The most heinous and hideous of acts.

Of course, the ACLU will creatively argue that buying pornographic videos of underage children is a matter of, and is protected by, free speech; on the part of the maker of the video and in Mr. Rust-Tierney's right to find his sexual gratification by repeatedly watching the brutal rape of screaming little girls that have been tied up.

ABC's Story:
Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2900174
Just the current facts, little background.

NBC's Story:
Youth Sport Coach Charged In Child Pornography Case
http://www.nbc4.com/news/11096703/detail.html
In which they are completely dishonest by not stating the fact that Mr. Rust-Tierney was a former president of the VA-ACLU. Why would they leave out that important fact? It's more than relevant in a story involving child pornography and abuse. Isn't the ACLU the champion of such victims in upholding their rights? The former Chapter President of the ACLU admits upon arrest he owns, subscribes to, and downloads to disc pornography of underage children. Interesting. NBC makes him out to be "a regular guy and sports coach from the suburbs." Bias? In this article?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

The Washington Times Story:
ACLU ex-president charged in child-porn case http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070223-104642-1644r.htm
Straightforward and fact-driven, including background.

Let's go back and see how the press handled similar stories:

Ex-Boy Scout official faces child porn charges
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/scouts.charges/index.html
CNN, in its headline, says the offender is an Ex-Boy Scout leader.

Homeland Security official arrested in child sex sting
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/04/homeland.arrest/index.html

Again, CNN makes the man's profession the headline and the story goes into explicit detail about the allegations including quotes.

Keep an eye on this, if it even stays in the papers or on the net, and see for yourself the overt bias of the media when it comes to "one of their own".

Do you remember how the media handled the Mark Foley situation? Another something to ponder.

The Not-Too-Illuminated Left

2007-01-14T13:59:00.000-08:00

A post found on the political board I frequent from time-to-time, a perfect example of the Left's hypocrisy.

Okay, another funny from the new folks heading up your Congress.
As we all know, Pelosi recently had a watered down ethics bill passed in the House. Basically, it created some level of transparency for Congressmen adding earmarks to legislation and forced disclosure for any personal gain. What made it typical liberal window dressing was the bill made no mention of lobbyist contributions to PACs. So you’d think that a relatively benign bill like this would be an easy bill to pass, even for Liberals.
Not so fast. Over in the Senate, Harry Reid worked overtime to pull out all the provisions which dealt with earmark reform. So what did those sly dog Republicans do?? They amended the bill by adding the exact language Pelosi had in her bill. According to the WSJ, Senate Democrats immediately took to the floor and denounced such Republican trickery, apparently completely unaware the language was from their own beloved Madame Speaker. After stepping to the podium to one by one lambaste Republicans for such a draconian amendment, Senate Democrats, led by Durbin moved to table the amendment. Luckily, they lost, 51 to 46. Of the 46 Senators who voted against the secret Pelosi language, 38 were of course, Democrats.
As it stands now, Harry Reid continues to work tirelessly as promised….. to kill any accountability for federal spending.

ABC Attempts to Make Saddam Hussein a Martyr

2007-01-01T16:38:00.000-08:00

A very thinly veiled attempted by the liberal American media to make Saddam Hussein into a "hero", a "martyr", and a "sympathetic figure" in the minds of those that oppose the war in Iraq. Looks like the medias efforts have paid off based on the number of times I have seen this article posted on the intenet.

To counter those "lovey-dovey" thoughts the secular progressives have for Saddam Hussein, I posted the following:

http://shopngvideos.com/products/inside_saddam_s_reign_2
For 24 years, Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party executed political rivals, Shias, Kurds and anyone else who dared disagree - or even tell a joke about the dictator. A chorus of testimonials, unearthed mass graves and discovered documents now reveal the extent to which Saddam and his Baath Party tortured, maimed, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens. As he faces trial for his crimes, NGC goes inside his reign of terror - with rare videotape that shows Baath Party members carrying out Saddam's brutal laws.
This program presents disturbing images of graphic violence and executions under the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Viewer discretion is advised.
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
Iraqi Women Under Saddam's Regime: A Population Silenced
Fact Sheet
Office of International Women's Issues
Washington, DC
March 20, 2003
Iraqi Women Under Saddam's Regime: A Population Silenced
Situation for Women in Saddam's Iraq
In 1979, immediately upon coming to power, Saddam Hussein silenced all political opposition in Iraq and converted his one-party state into a cult of personality. Since then, his regime has systematically executed, tortured, imprisoned, raped, terrorized, and repressed the Iraqi people. Iraq is a nation rich in culture, with a long history of intellectual and scientific achievement, especially among its women. However, Saddam Hussein's brutal regime has silenced the voices of Iraq's women, along with its men, through violence and intimidation.
In Iraq under Saddam, if you are a woman, you could face:
Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)
Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor." (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam's jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding. (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002)
Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)
U.S. Support for Iraqi Women
All people deserve to live in freedom, including the men and women of Iraq. On March 6, 2003, a group of free Iraqi women met with Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, and Ambassador at Large for a Free Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. The women shared their experiences under Saddam's reign of terror. As this group made clear, Iraqi women are eager to participate in the process of building a peaceful, democratic post-Saddam society. They want their society to once again be based on progressive Iraqi traditions and values. They believe in the universal principles of human rights.
As in Afghanistan, the United States Government is prepared to help Iraqis with the priorities and projects that they identify as the best way to achieve their goals. We will continue to meet with Iraqi women and exchange ideas about their path forward. As Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky stated after her recent meeting with a group of free Iraqi women: "It is clear that the women of Iraq have a critical role to play in the future revival of their society. They bring skills and knowledge that will be vital to restoring Iraq to its rightful place in the region and in the world."

The Politically Skewed UPI

2006-12-30T00:34:00.000-08:00

On the political discussion board I visit, someone had posted this article (link is above) as FACT. Well, posted just this leading sentence:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

After reading this "headline", I knew something untoward was afoot and composed the following reply:

Article Editor
Correcting the misleading article of December 29th.
We had, with deliberate purpose and intent to mislead the reader, published the article using that leading sentence because we know that's all that's usually read when glancing through the paper.
We also know you rely on this first sentence as the whole story, when in fact, it usually is not.
We always use this deceitful tactic when printing news articles of political import because we know the reader usually will not investigate the article further for themselves. Twisting words to obfuscate the truth is very important to us. We can, and do, forward our political agenda, whatever that may be at any given time, every day. We readily admit we take advantage of our reader's lack of insight and willingness to be led.
In the interest of fair play, for just this one article (as there are hundreds of thousands in the archives), we now republish the first sentence, truthfully.
BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

The poster of that article STILL didn't get it.

He responded with this:

But isn't it just amazazing that of the 2000 people they randomly interviewed, they just happened to pick the only 2000 in the entire country that felt the situation was better before the invasion? The odds against are just astounding!
I'd like to see a source for your UPI quote, if you have one.

To which I responded:

Are you that thick? That's the second paragraph of the article you posted.
2,000 people is not the entire nation of Iraq as the article twisted you to believe.

And, he couldn't let it go, so then he posted:

"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll." is not the second paragraph in that article, and as far as I can tell, you made it up as some sort of lame joke. I'd love to be proven otherwise.
And to answer your first question, I guess I'm probably considered thick by some. It is a relative term after all.
I'm sure some would consider carrying on a conversion with a rude anon who makes up statistics to support his argument to be a sure sign of thickness. In any case, the article didn't twist me to believe anything, I only sited the statistic. I didn't offer any interpretation.

I finished up with:

If you're unable to see through the twisting of words used in that article, as 2,000 people interviewed does not represent the 15 million the article purports, I don't know what to say to you.
I think you're feeling insulted and silly because what you posted was proven to be a political tactic you bought into; hook, line, and sinker. Most will and do fall into the same journalistic trap.
But, now you know better and can, at least I hope you will, investigate an article and the sources it cites to get the whole picture instead of relying on skewed and slanted headlines used to inflame, incite, or promote a particular agenda. You will read more carefully, to a complete understanding of the matter, before using twisted truth as your banner.

He said:

where you seem to be mistaken is in your assumption that I didn't read and fully comprehend the content of the article.
In fact I did note where the poll was taken, and though I'm sure all those other peaceful, settled and content areas of Iraq (which are where, exactly?) would skew the data in your favor by a few percent, I don't think that invalidates the result of the poll, which is that many, perhaps the vast majority, of the recipients of these U.S. military efforts still aren't happy with the results of those efforts.
You can chalk me up as a victim of the leftist news media if you like, but those data cannot be very encouraging to anybody.

Me:

I made no mistake and no assumption.

He:

Certainly you did. You assumed that I fell into a "journalistic trap". The distribution of poll respondants were not to your liking, perhaps, but I would accept the poll results as indicative of the country's opinion within a reasonable margin. Anbar covers roughly a third of Iraq, Najaf is in the south, Baghdad in the north... where exactly would you like included in the poll to gain the other 40% approval needed to break even?

Me:

I think being shown the lack of journalistic integrity and blatant misleading in the article you posted as "truth" and "the way it is" has thrown you for a loop.
It has nothing to do with my liking or not liking the article.
It has to do with the truth.
Not a "version" or a "twsiting" of the truth. Only the truth.
I think you have a problem with math.
By posting a headline which stated 90 percent of Iraq believed something, you wanted, just as the misleading headline did, for everyone to believe that 90% of Iraqis contributed to the poll.
"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll."
90 percent of 15 million plus (the population of Iraq) is 13,500,000.
The headline would have you believe 13,500,000 of Iraqis believe something.
When investigating the article further, it is discovered 2,000 people were interviewed for the article's "poll" (100% of the participants). 2,000 people that live in terror-filled neighborhoods. Probably specifically targeted as fodder for this "poll" and the generation of the misleading headline.
2,000 is 0.013333333333333334% of 15,000,000 (Iraq's population).
There is a vast difference between 13,500,000 (90% of Iraq's population)
and
2,000 (0.01% of Iraq's population)
Yes, 90% of the 100% Iraqis interviewed for this article (2,000 people) feel this way, but 90% of all Iraqis (as the headline purports) may not. We only know the opinion of the 2,000 people that contributed their opinions to the poll cited as the basis for misleading headline.
I hope you understand how the math facts were twisted into something else for the purposes of this headline and the thousands of other articles published every day.
It is political gossip fodder and propaganda at the lowest level of social and journalistic irresponsibility. The intent with which it was originally published was wholly realized when you reposted the headline as "truth", when in fact, it is not.

He:

Yes, "about" 90% Iraqis feel that way. A reasonable inference from the results of the polled sample. I'm sure that you can appreciate that polling the entire population of Iraq tends to be logistically difficult.
Do you honestly believe that the 2000 interviewees were prescreened for political slant before the poll was taken? Or that those particular 2000 people come from three areas that are so divergent from the general opinion that the hidden, silent majority could carry the results into a favorable review of the invasion and occupation?
I think you have a problem with statistical representation, and I think you are feeling a little silly for suggesting that the general population feels anything but fear and anger at towards the occupation forces.
See there? We can both ascribe internal states to each other. Isn't that fun?
I think you have a problem with statistical analysis, too. Suggesting that the only way to gauge reality is a comprehensive survey of every citizen is ludicrous. The limited poll taken was a sample. A sample can be used to assess characteristics of a larger group. That's how polls work.

Me:

You're hopelessly misguided.
God help us all.

He:

Excellent retort, my friend.
Good night.

Me:

Projecting political propaganda, your personal feelings, or anything else onto the beliefs of the Iraqi people as a whole (of whom you know the personal feelings of how many?) by way of politically slanted news articles, which, proven here are wildly skewed, is irresponsible.
You've completely missed the point, I think purposefully, in order to perpetuate this often-(mis)read and believed misleading information.
What of the character and veracity of the author of this article for the UPI? Was it his/her intention to mislead people with broad and sweeping comments that are based, very loosely, on a journalistic twisting of facts? Yes, it was. Right in the headline.
Your insistence at perpetuating this misinformation leads me to believe you find nothing wrong with how the article (and hundreds of thousands more just like it) is maliciously misleading.
And, because of that, I must ask you to refrain from calling me "friend".
Good night.

He:

I'll be happy to refrain.
Do you have a registered handle that I might look for to avoid such an insult to your journalistically integral self?
I think the irresponsibility you seek is more easily found in those who led our nation to unprovoked war, or in your own statements ascribing motives and feelings to people (myself, the journalist, the Iraqi people outside the poll) based on your own politically slanted views.

Me:

Again, you've completely missed the point. Those blinders you have on must be HUGE.
I have stated no political views whatsoever. Not one. You, however, have projected on to me what you believe my political opinion is for me.
I merely pointed out to you the blatant lie of the headline which you believed and republished thereby perpetuating that lie. I believe you did so unknowingly and with good intention, but, I could not let such a blatant misrepresentation go by without comment. And perhaps a bit of instruction as to the "bad faith" of the media.
You've been caught off-guard and unawares. You've never been shown, in black and white, how the media lies. Your illusion is shattered. Your political beliefs now in question because you now know how the media manipulates with everything it publishes because of being agenda driven and a money-making machine for its advertisers.
Now understaning that you're one to believe the constant barrage of misinformation perpetuated by the media without question, one that is easily manipulated, I wouldn't seek your company for any reason. Good on you for thinking positive about that possiblity, though.

Another Juicy Obfuscation by "The Guardian"

2006-09-29T00:13:00.000-07:00

Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian

In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. “I approach you not with arms, but with words,” he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, “not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love.” Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the “bestial cruelty” of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? “I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree,” he expostulated, “worse than cattle if I assent!”

Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such “love” might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope’s words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended “to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam”.

But the Pope’s good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this “blood libel” regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope’s denigration of Islam have accused him of “hypocrisy”, pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.

Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.

We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur’an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet’s death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west’s perceived “double standards” - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on “Islam”. But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

my comments:

verses from the Koran

"Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33-34)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)

"Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16-17)

"We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: 'Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.' 'Woe betide us, we have done wrong' was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light." (Sura 21.11-15)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

the verses above are the current verses, the ones which supersede any other "dictate" within the Koran. if there is a contradiction within the writings of the Koran, it is the most recent (by date) verse which is the bottom line, so to speak

in ancient times, the time of Mohammed's beginnings, Islam was, out of the necessity of physical survival, tolerant of non-believers in their quest to convert people to Islam. Islam was the minority back then. they had to "get along" to be accepted in society

as the faithful of Islam grew in number and power, the Allah of Mohammed changed his mind, too, so very conveniently. soon it became time to "call people by the sword", conversion of the infidel to Islam by violence, of any means, and in all situations

once Mohammed conquered Mecca, he was all set for the great Jihad against the non-Muslim world. the prior teachings in the Koran of peace and religious tolerance flew right out the window

modern-day Islam certainly does not interpret these verses literally, but the Islamic extremists do

therein lies the difference, to my way of thinking, between Islam and radical Islam; they cannot be lumped together as a single religion

for the author to lump all of Islam together is naïve, dangerous, and medieval, no matter her scholarly accolades, as is her assertion that separatism exists and is rampant in today's world

it's radical Islam which is frowned upon, shunned, and feared. the followers of the twisted version of Islam which encourages and demands hate for fellow human beings (infidels); their destruction and eradication the only goal of those hateful and vicious believers that hold the decapitating sword in their hands

i find this article completely dishonest

in today's societies, in all the larger cities of the West, communities of differing ethnicity and religion are stacked on top of one another for block after block

all living in peace and harmony, or, at the very least, tolerating well the people next door

here in the US, there are good-natured (but completely tasteless) jokes about how 7-11's are always managed by someone from the Middle East, some gas stations, and some taxi drivers, as well

i don't see anyone avoiding 7-11s, gas stations, or taxi rides because the person behind the counter, at the pump, or behind the wheel may be of Islamic origin

i don't see our schools or universities turning away those of Middle Eastern descent; as professors, teachers, faculty, or students

i don't see hospitals or social welfare organizations ignoring those of the Muslim religion; as doctors, patients, or those in need

ever since the 1960s when race relations were so strained and then civil rights were instituted and made law, don't you feel that ever since that time, that "awakening", each generation has made sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated?

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that races other than your own were inferior or less worthy? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you not to associate with those of other races or religions? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that it was very wrong to cast aspersions, on any one, regardless of race, color, or creed? yes! they did! and if they did not, you certainly know better...

i don't see this hate of Islam the author (whose article is rife with personal opinion and her own brand of hate for Christianity) speaks about at all

except, perhaps, in the minds of those that wish to keep things as an "us" vs "them" scenario, keeping the murky and distasteful soup of victimization and entitlement on a slow, rolling boil

i see this kind of mind-set alive and well for those that need to have a "cause"; something to keep their social and politically correct "compassionate" egos afloat... and thus, the separatism lives on in their minds where none exists in civilized society at large

why is it we do coexist, and quite well, and then someone like Ms Armstrong comes along and infers, persuasively yet incorrectly, that we do not? it's that word "hate" she chose to use to illustrate and sensationalize the article. it's the juicy "gossip" in which some relish and twist before passing it on to two friends, then they twist it some more and tell two friends, and so on. convoluted and misguided

do you, or the people you associate with on a daily basis, hate Islam or the people of Islam? i'm betting - "no". so, where are these masses of people that hate Islam? in the mind of Ms Armstrong?

radical Islam is a wholly different mosque

this is present day. we don't live and function in yesterday or medieval times or the times of the Crusades. the past is over and cannot be changed. we're a forward looking people, the sun will come up tomorrow kind of folks. the history of religions and the lessons well-learned from those histories remain with us, yes, and we live in much more harmonious times because of those lessons

there is no Western prejudice toward Islam and our peril is at the sword bearing hands of radical Islam; to which Ms Armstrong seems to have sympathy since she is unable to realistically differentiate between the two

About Karl Rove

2005-07-18T09:31:00.000-07:00

Up above I say something about conspiratorial fun abounding.

*grin* Fasten your seatbelts, as Bette Davis would say, here's what I'm thinking...

Karl Rove? Not guilty of anything but steering a reporter off a story containing false information created by Joseph Wilson 4 (with the complicity of his wife, Valerie Plame?).

Joseph Wilson 4, former ambassador to Iraq under Clinton. Did a good thing while there, but, later, unambassadorized, slipped into obscurity.

Enter Valerie Plame, wife of Joseph Wilson 4 and a specialist on WMD. An employee of the CIA (which gave incorrect information to President Bush leading up to the war in Iraq (deliberately?)), no longer a covert operative as her nine-to-five daily desk job at Langley would suggest. Her last overseas assignment/mission/job having happened nine years past.

Joseph Wilson 4, while applauded by GHWBush, later gave his political allegiance to the Democrats. He worked for and contributed to the campaign of John Kerry for President.

This all makes for fabulous B movie fodder. Plame and her husband, with the backing of John Kerry (and possibly George Soros money) may be responsible for the misinformation leading us into this war. Deliberately planting lies which effected decisions to be made by the Administration based on that disinformation which the Administration believed came from a credible source. That "credible" source being the CIA, and by the CIA, I mean: Plame, using her wimpy husband to debunk a "crazy report", backed by George Soros money, hand-in-hand with the Kerry campaign in an effort to discredit the President and have him look foolish in the eyes of the world to further Soros' personal political vision.

Soros, I believe, has insinuated himself into the minutia of the anti-Bush agenda.

Just my turn at playing Mel Gibson playing a conspiracy theorist.

Fitzgerald’s investigation will be finalized soon. Hopefully prior to October. This is one fascinating summer page-turner.

The Ten Commandments and The Supreme Court

2005-06-27T08:45:00.000-07:00

Well, this has been a very intersting morning.

Listening to the BTK killer (Dennis Rader), who plead guilty to everything, detail the murders he committed at the judge's request. The BTK killer began with dates, locations, and names; but the judge said that wasn't good enough and wanted details. The families of two of the BTK killer's victims are in the courthouse and they are the ones that wanted to know the details of their loved ones' deaths. Closure.

Segue into: Thou Shalt Not Kill

Segue into: The Supreme Court and the Two Rulings Made This Morning

Okay, this kind of ACLU hate propaganda irks the hell out of me. So, I'm listening to FoxNews (Bridget Quinn) and she's relaying the latest from the wires as the rulings come in from Kentucky and Texas. I'm thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah... same old stuff. But, wait a minute... Kentucky - No, but Texas - Yes? What's up with that?

So I Google for the webpage of the Kentucky Courthouse. I want to see what the "historical display" looks like. Being a former resident of Alabama, I was thinking it was along the lines of the granite statue which was in the courthouse in Montgomery. Something prominently displayed. Something massive. Something which called attention to itself. Bridget kept talking about the "addition of other documents on display" and I'm thinking, how can that be? Documents? With a granite statue? So, I find the webpage but it's not looking as though I'll find what I was looking for there, so, back to the Google page and, lo and behold, there's a link to exactly what I want.

Here it is: http://www.lc.org/misc/tencommandphotos.htm

That's it. ???? How in the HELL, if you'll please pardon the unheavenly use of language, is this or could this ever be considered an obtrusive display? I just don't get it. And the deciding vote on the Texas display was by a Liberal judge. It's been there for over forty years so it's okay. Something new, though? Mmmmmmmm, probably won't make it.

I don't understand why the ACLU has such a hard time with this. Who decided they are the ones to scour every nook and cranny for anything they deem prejudiced, biased, or contrary to civil rights? Isn't that self-appointed Big Brothership? I'll decided what is okay for me, thank you. If I disagree with something, and I doubt I'd ever go to the extreme the ACLU does, I'll just walk by. That's all that needs be done. Move along. Shake your head. Nothing else. Now, if it's something completely inappropriate, such as a giant billboard of a couple fornicating which would be easily viewed by children, well, that's gotta go. That's just common sense.

This display in Kentucky is so miniscule, so non-flashy, so quiet and unobtrusive, I doubt I'd even spend time reviewing what was framed. And, if I did, it's certainly not something that's going to get my hackles up.

The news article from FoxNews follows with the official details.

Supreme Court Bars Commandments From Courthouses
Monday, June 27, 2005
By Jane Roh
FoxNews

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses, but said a 6-foot granite replica on government land in Texas was acceptable.

In the first ruling, McCreary County v. ACLU , the court said that the Kentucky displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in court buildings or on government property. However, the Biblical laws could be displayed in an historical context, as they are in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Notably, the first four commandments, which have to do with honoring God and the Sabbath, were obscured by the artist who designed the frieze.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote. He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The Kentucky displays have been the target of litigation since they were first posted in 1999. With each lower court ruling against county officials, revisions were made to the displays. By the time the case landed on the Supreme Court's docket, the framed copies of the commandments were part of a larger, more neutral display about the history of American law.

Scalia wrote in his dissent that the changed displays had become constitutionally acceptable. However, during oral arguments in March, Scalia scolded the county for trying to convince the court the displays had been stripped of religious intent, saying it was "idiotic" to dress the commandments in historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas have all said that there is nothing wrong with government asserting God's supremacy, while the other justices on the court believe doing so would be to the exclusion of Americans of other faiths or no faiths, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Several justices were particularly disturbed by a resolution passed by county officials in reaction to a lower-court ruling, declaring that American law was derived from the Ten Commandments. While revisions were made to the displays, that resolution was left intact.

In the resolution, county officials declared: "The judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction."

Monday's rulings were perhaps the court's most highly anticipated of the 2004 session. The court has not visited the hotly contested issue since 1980, when religious displays in public schools were ruled unconstitutional.

Interest in the cases was boosted by former Alabama Justice Roy Moore's battle two years ago to keep a giant, 5,300-pound granite replica of the commandments in his courthouse. On Nov. 13, 2003, a judicial panel banished him from the bench because he defied a federal court order to remove the tablets.

The other Ten Commandments case, Van Orden v. Perry , involved a statue donated to the government and placed on grounds outside the state capitol. A Texas court had ruled that the replica, given by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961 and placed among more than a dozen non-religious monuments, did not violate the Establishment clause.

The case was brought by Thomas Van Orden, a former lawyer who is now homeless. Last week, in an interview with the Dallas Morning News, Van Orden predicted the court would rule against him, but said winning or losing was almost beside the point.

"This was never a lawsuit at all," he told the News. "It was always a political question."

The justices, again split 5-4, determined the statue to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority.

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.

Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Scalia, and justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in the result.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent that the display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens noted in large letters the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God."'

"The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the full text of once version of the Ten Commandments," Stevens wrote.

"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."

Justices O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Racism is Alive and Well With the Left

2005-06-13T21:25:00.000-07:00

From the Leftist corkboard I visit:

Mon Jun 13 15:26 ~ III writes "Michael Jackson Not guilty........" - 67 reaction(s)
Mon Jun 13 21:25 ~ - Subject: * - 0 reaction(s)
XXX said:
"Over at jury selection"? Yeah, the jury was mostly white, with NO African-Americans on it. We know how much white people LUUVVVE MJ!

=================

My comments:

Wow. What a racist thing to say. All you have to do is look at pictures of MJ's concerts, the area outside the courthouse, any bluddy picture of his fans waving and screaming and there will be a very diverse group with a slightly higher concentration of Caucasians. Especially Caucasian females.

As far as the jury goes, the majority of them had something to do with MJ in the past, either directly or through children or grandchildren. This is the community in which he lives and it is mainly Caucasian. The area is one of ranches and vineyards. Rich to semi-rich people. Their ages were from 20-something to 80-something with a chunk of 35-60 in the middle. MJ is 46 years old. The vast majority of the jury grew up listening to MJ. That can't hurt, either. This jury was a pretty rural one, for Santa Maria/Santa Ynez, and being star struck isn't completely out of the picture, either.

And who has purchased MJ's music for the last 30 years? All kinds of people.

Which brings me to this...

When the hell are people going to stop referring to one another based on color? It is not relevant to conversation at all. Example: Which guy is it? The guy in the red shirt or the guy in the blue baseball cap? How easy was that? Pretty damn easy.

Are you a good person? An honest person? A trustworthy person? A compassionate person? A respectful person? A person that believes in treating others as they themselves would like to be treated? Fine! That's what it's all about.

Whatever happened to the mantra, "people are people"?

Making constant references to race and/or color, especially with so much hate behind it as XXX has done, just irks the hell out of me and perpetuates the yoke of a label that is scribbled every time a mouth opens and utters the words which are meant to separate and classify people. Even more so when there is such obvious hate behind them.

Speaking in those terms only prolongs feelings of victimization and hinders anyone and everyone hearing or reading the divisionist words from making any headway into a world free of racial bias and prejudice. I had hoped we'd be there by now, but this kind of thinking and speaking will keep it from happening.

Classify, classify, classify. Why? That's a pretty "Big Brother" way of thinking. Frightening.

We're long past this kind of thing, Lefties. You always fall back on putting “race” in its “place” and then denying it up and down every time you’re held responsible, or, finding yet another way to move the goal posts to what you believe is your advantage. Want forward thinking? Want to be progressive? Remember to think before perpetuating racial hate and discrimination in your everyday speech and internet comments.

XXX has unwittingly provided a public service, just by being his hateful self, in proving no one is completely useless; they can always serve as a bad example.

Jacko Found Not Guilty

2005-06-13T19:44:00.000-07:00

Jacko Found Not Guilty
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. — Michael Jackson has been acquitted of all of the charges against him, including molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor in 2003, conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive to get them to rebut a damaging television documentary and administering alcohol to enable child molestation.

Jackson wiped tears from his eyes as the verdict was read. One of his lawyers, Susan Yu, burst into tears as the first verdicts were announced. Some of the women in the jury also wept and passed around a box of tissues.

When it was over, Jackson stood and was embraced by his chief lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr. , and Yu.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon sat with his head in his hands.

"Obviously we're disappointed in the verdict ... but we believe in the system of justice," Sneddon told reporters later. He said he had not yet spoken to the accuser's family about the outcome.

Asked whether this marks the end of his pursuit of Jackson, Sneddon relied: "No comment."

Outside the courthouse, the crowd erupted in cheers as the verdict was read. A woman in the throng released one white dove each time an acquittal was read.

However, while exiting the courthouse with his family, the former King of Pop moved very slowly, looking shaken and grim, and he didn't smile as supporters cheered him on.

Jackson's parents, Katherine and Joe Jackson, sisters LaToya and Rebbie, and brothers Randy and Jackie all looked on. His father helped guide him out of the courthouse.

He was escorted by his aides into a black SUV, and made no immediate public statement.

"Justice is done. The man's innocent. He always was," said Mesereau, on a Web site.

"I would never have married a pedophile. And the system works," Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe said in a statement given to "Entertainment Tonight."

One of Jackson's supporters told FOX News: "I've been with him all the way and I'm just so happy. Go touring again, Michael. We love you."

After the verdicts were read, the judge read a statement from the jury: "We the jury feel the weight of the world's eyes upon us." They said they followed the judge's instruction and asked the world let them return to "our private lives as anonymously as we came."

The jury, which listened to 14 weeks of testimony and arguments, sent word of a verdict on the 10-count indictment about 3:30 p.m. EDT.

The verdict -- reached after about 30 hours of deliberations over seven days -- ended a star-studded, four-month trial that offered a global audience a lurid look into Jackson's weird world and presented jurors with vastly different portraits of him: a creepy pervert who preyed on little boys, or the victim of a frame-up by a family of shakedown artists.

In a press conference later, jurors remained guarded about details of their deliberations but offered some insight. One said that at the outset they got beyond the fact that Jackson is a celebrity and treated him like anyone else.

Several jurors said they were irritated by the testimony of the accuser's mother, who stared at the jury and snapped her fingers at them.

"I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us," said one juror, a woman. She said she thought to herself, "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady."

FOX News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano remarked that the jurors felt no animus toward Jackson even after all they heard about him, and said it could have something to do with Jackson's "aura." He also said the prosecution could have made a better case.

"They could have tailored the case to just molestation. They should never have put the mother on the witness stand -- she made Jackson seem normal by comparison," he said.

During the trial, prosecutors who had been pursuing Jackson for years branded him a deviant who used his playland as the ultimate pervert's lair, plying boys with booze and porn before molesting them.

Defense lawyers described Jackson as a humanitarian who wanted to protect kids and give them the life he never had while growing up as a child star. The boy had asked to meet the star when he thought he was dying of cancer.

The defense said the family exploited the boy's illness to shake down celebrities, then concocted the charges after realizing Jackson was cutting them off from a jet-set lifestyle that included limo rides and stays at luxurious resorts.

Jackson faced 10 charges in all, including four counts that he molested the boy in early 2003. Jackson also was charged with providing the boy with wine -- "Jesus juice," the pop star called it -- and conspiring with members of his inner circle to hold the accuser and his family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary.

In the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary made by a British journalist, Jackson held hands with the boy and acknowledged sharing his bed with children, a practice he described as sweet and not at all sexual.

Jackson agreed to take part in the documentary because he hoped it would help his image after years of eccentric behavior that included transforming his face through plastic surgery.

But the airing of the program in February 2003 triggered intense media scrutiny of Jackson's relationship with the boy, as well as calls for investigations. Authorities interviewed the boy and Jackson was charged before year's end. At trial, prosecutors would allege that Jackson molested the boy in the weeks after the family recorded a rebuttal video.

The boy, now 15, testified that Jackson twice masturbated him while they were under the covers in the singer's bedroom. The boy's brother testified he twice witnessed Jackson fondle the boy as he slept.

Prosecutors hauled out bag after bag of adult magazines found in Jackson's home and projected explicit images onto a large screen, saying Jackson showed boys the material to arouse them. Prosecution witnesses described other bizarre behavior by Jackson: They said he licked his accuser's head, simulated a sex act with a mannequin, kept dolls in bondage outfits on his desk.

Prosecutors said kids were allowed the run of Neverland -- a fantasy land of amusement park rides, golf carts and exotic animals about 110 miles northwest of Los Angeles -- before being molested in Jackson's bedroom.

"They rode rides, went to the zoo, ate whatever they wanted -- candy, ice cream, soda pop," prosecutor Ron Zonen said in closing arguments. "And at night they entered into the world of the forbidden."

Under an unusual California law, prosecutors were allowed to introduce evidence of other instances of molestation on Jackson's part that never resulted in any charges, to prove that the alleged crimes were part of a pattern of behavior.

A parade of servants and other Neverland staff members described seeing Jackson grope or otherwise molest boys, with a one-time security guard saying he saw the singer shower with and perform oral sex on a boy who later received a settlement with Jackson.

The defense systematically portrayed the household help as disgruntled employees who were angry about being fired and peddled gossip about the pop star to the supermarket tabloids.

The defense also relentlessly attacked the credibility of the accuser and his family, namely by focusing on a $152,000 settlement they received from J.C. Penney after the mother accused store security guards of roughing up the family and groping her.

Jackson's lawyers said it was a trumped-up lawsuit and suggested that the woman's injuries were actually caused by her abusive then-husband. The defense also portrayed the mother as a welfare cheat for obtaining benefits after winning the settlement.

Witnesses for the defense testified that during the weeks the boy and his family were supposedly being held against their will by Jackson's associates, they were taken on shopping sprees, the mother went to a spa for a body wax, and the children had an orthodontist appointment -- all paid for by Jackson.

In his closing argument, Mesereau called the family a pack of scam artists trying to pull off the "the biggest con of their careers."

Jackson never took the stand, but spoke on several videos played in court.

The case unfolded at times like a circus. After his arraignment, Jackson jumped atop an SUV and danced for cheering fans. He failed to show up for court one morning and was nearly jailed before he shuffled in wearing pajama bottoms, suffering from what aides said was a back injury. Often, he came to court in dark jackets and a rainbow of vests and matching arm bands.

The jury got a look at Jackson's strange world when the documentary was played in court. Jackson said he would often hug or play with his chimp Bubbles to relax after a hard day's work. He also said he once considered having a celebrity animal party for Bubbles.

Several celebrities testified for Jackson, including Macaulay Culkin (search ) and comedians Jay Leno and Chris Tucker. Tucker said he felt used by the family and warned Jackson to beware. Culkin said he slept in Jackson's bed as a child but nothing improper ever happened, contradicting testimony that Jackson put his hands up the "Home Alone" actor's shorts.

In jumbled and tearful testimony, the accuser's mother claimed that Jackson's associates held her against her will, warning her that killers were after the family and that they might somehow disappear from Neverland in a hot-air balloon.

"Please don't judge me!" the mother implored jurors, holding out her arms. "He's wrong!" she said, pointing at Mesereau, an aggressive defense attorney with a mane of pure white hair and the build of a prize fighter.

The prosecution was led by Sneddon, who displayed open hostility for Jackson and eagerly tried him -- an opportunity denied him in 1993 when the star settled another threatened molestation case with a boy for $15 million to $20 million. Later, Jackson derided Sneddon in song as "a cold man."

The trial seemed to wear Jackson down. He lost weight, and the artist known for his electric, moonwalking performances was rendered motionless, seemingly frozen in his courtroom chair as his private world became utterly public.

Prosecutors portrayed Jackson as being in dire financial straits because of heavy spending. Jackson's "Thriller" album from 1982 is one of the best-selling albums of all time, but his dominance of pop music eroded around the time molestation allegations began to arise in the 1990s.

Although Jackson did not take the stand, the defense used a powerful tape of him shot by his own video cameraman. The jury saw nearly three hours of introspection during which the star talked about his troubled childhood.

"I haven't been betrayed or deceived by children," he said. "Adults have let me down."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

* **** *** ******

Holy jumpin' hell. Can you believe this?

Well, Robert Shapiro made a good point late today (on FoxNews). Had the prosecution gone forward with only the charge of child molestation and left the conspiracy crap out of it, only the boy, the two earlier accusers, and MJ would have been allowed to testify. But, the prosecution had to add extra cheese to the taco to make his plate look intimidating. I gotta go with Shapiro on this one.

The jury was a pretty diverse group, only saw a couple of mouth breathers (hoping they were alternates).

What you have to remember is this: MJ was found not guilty but was not proven innocent.

Anyone that says MJ is innocent of the charges is deluding themselves when MJ himself publicly admits to sleeping with young boys and finds nothing wrong in that.

Will he continue this behavior? Most probably. He's one sick puppy and this kind of illness is insidious and all-consuming. Rumor is he's off to Europe and Asia soon and there's no shortage of adoring young fans overseas.

I SO Dislike The Guardian

2005-06-05T09:41:00.000-07:00

This is not an article; it is an opinion essay. "Journalists" employed by The Guardian are opinion writers.

"The Guardian is the only truly independent national newspaper in the UK. Ownership by the Scott Trust guarantees Guardian journalists are free to present the truth as they see it, with no proprietor, or shareholders dictating what can and cannot appear in our pages." - (Link)

All too often people confuse opinion pieces with actual hard news articles (probably because they're both in newspapers, so it must be fact, right?) and therein lies the daunting confusion for them in forming coherent, refutible arguments instead of prattling on and on with rife, misguided emotionalism and nonsense.

And isn't it the natural reaction of a man whose genitals are in danger of being mutilated to cover them? Why then do so many stand there, drooling, head tilted back, arms wide to the side, muttering, "You're right, Mr Porter. Emasculate me. Lop it off. It's useless. Chop away." I don't understand this revert-to-juvenile mentality of subjegating one's self to such a scathing and maligning view of one's Nation. Emasculated? How? Isn't Mr Porter's country involved up to the hip in this, too? I thought so.

"Mission to Explain Has Been Replaced by a Mission to Avoid"? What does that mean? No one is avoiding anything; except the extremist fringe, who refuse to accept reality. What allegation against the current administration has not been investigated? Because the conclusion of those investigations do not meet the expectations of some, the entire process is discounted as meaningless. There's rationality for you.

A Study in Emasculation
In the US Media, a Mission to Explain Has Been Replaced by a Mission to Avoid
Henry Porter
Saturday June 4, 2005
The Guardian

Our name for him was Wig. And for two years only a handful of people at Vanity Fair's office in New York knew what or who Wig was. It turned out to be another code name for Deep Throat, wittily, or perhaps tastelessly, given to Mark Felt by Bob Woodward during the Watergate investigations - undoubtedly the highest moment of journalistic inquiry ever on either side of the Atlantic.

Let's go with wittingly on this one. It was the 70s, afterall, and Deep Throat, the movie, was the talk of the town for quite some time. Sensationalism. A newspaper-seller.
"The highest moment of journalistic inquiry..." Not quite. What investigation? Woodward and Bernstein were spoon-fed the info; told where to go, what calls to make, what office was connected to what office. Hardly high moments of journalistic inquiry.

Woodward was gracious when he learned that Vanity Fair had scooped him with his own story, as indeed was Carl Bernstein when editor Graydon Carter called his friend to make a slightly rueful apology on Wednesday morning. Actually it's a testament to Woodward and Bernstein's integrity that Vanity Fair was able to capture the unicorn and reveal the identity of this mythic creature. This was a serious secret that still has the power to stir considerable passions in America, as we saw in the reaction of Pat Buchanan who instantly branded Felt a traitor. Woodward and Bernstein, together with the former Post editor Ben Bradlee, held true to the cardinal rule of journalism of never revealing a source. In a time of such looseness and compromise, this kind of rigid probity almost seems old-fashioned.

The Buchanan article is here.
"Actually it's a testament to Woodward and Bernstein's integrity..." Integrity. Hmmmm. Having a problem with this one. Was it integrity to accept a plethora of illegal information from the FBI's Number 2 man who knowingly had an axe to grind with the president on an on-going basis using the shield of "unnamed source" to cover-up your complicence? It sounds more like ensuring your promotion, to me. It was the waiving away of the countless opportunities to encourage the man without courage to "do the right thing" and resign his position within the FBI and give this same information to the grad jury.
The actual article from Vanity Fair is here, 9 pages, pdf file.
"This was a serious secret..." That's right. Was. John D. O'Connor, a wishy-washy California lawyer revealed that Felt, his client (maybe?) was Deep Throat.
Cardinal rule of journalism? A secret? "In 1999, a teenager broke the story of Deep Throat's identity as W. Mark Felt in a high school history term paper. He got a B on it. Or "something ridiculous like that. The teacher is...an idiot in my opinion," said Chase Culeman-Beckman to the Journal News of New York in 1999." (Link)
"PORT CHESTER — Yesterday's revelation of the identity of the secretive source known as Deep Throat — one of the country's most enduring mysteries — came as little surprise to one Port Chester resident who has been fingering W. Mark Felt since the ripe old age of 8." (Link)
Revenge of the camper: Did one of the world's most closely guarded secrets leak out through summer-camp pillow talk?
Chase Culeman-Beckman, a 19-year-old from Port Chester, N.Y., recently told the Hartford Courant that Carl Bernstein's son, Jacob, tipped him off to the identity of Deep Throat when they were at camp together in 1988. The Watergate source was, he said, W. Mark Felt, the former associate director of the FBI whose name has long been among those considered likely to have tipped off the Washington Post's Bernstein and Bob Woodward about Nixon's scandalous White House shenanigans.
Felt, now 86, denies the report. A snickering Bernstein denies it as well: "Bob and I have been wise enough never to tell our wives, and we've certainly never told our children." He reiterated that the once dynamic duo would identify Deep Throat only upon the source's death.
"Is Mark Felt still alive?" Bernstein asked." (Link)

In many other ways, recalling Watergate this week emphasises how times have changed, and I am afraid present values in the US media are not shown in an especially good light. Since 9/11, when the heroic fortitude of America was at its most visible, the Bush administration has gradually contrived to cast all criticism and investigation into its activities as unpatriotic and an obstruction to its jihad against Islamist terrorism. Few cross the line in the White House, where a wary and unforgiving regime - not unlike that run by Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman for Richard Nixon - ensures that leaks are very rare indeed. Much the same atmosphere of fear and obedience obtains in the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld and at the justice department, though less so at the state department and CIA.

"...present values in the US media are not shown in an especially good light." Mr Porter is obviously speaking of the instances where the Leftist media try to pull fast ones on the citizens of the United States by using false documents and intentionally incorrect information.
"Since 9/11...an obstruction to its jihad against Islamist terrorism." Again, there has not been one allegation levied against the administration or the military which has not gone uninvestigated. Transparancy has always been maintained.
Mr Porter seems to have an issue with national security. Leaks are not supposed to happen. That's why they're called leaks. Even a rare occurance is unacceptable. Atmosphere of fear? This is laughable. What measuring stick is Mr Porter using for this one?

Broadcasters have largely accepted that attacks on the White House can only harm America's interests, and when they don't they are bamboozled and vilified by the shrill voices of the right.

"Attacks (what a choice of words, huh?) on the White House" do harm America's interests. It's the "divided we fall" we've all heard and sung. It's as though the fringe extremists want there to be hard lines drawn between the political parties. Every opportunity is taken, within the media, to lambaste the administration and skew the facts with negative, anti-Bush rhetoric. Any number of media watchdog sites have recent reports and studies proving the anti-Bush bias in all forms of media.Mr Porter has his political parties confused on this one.

I visit the States three or four times a year, and watching the television news in hotel rooms in the last three years has been like witnessing a time-lapse study of emasculation. It's not just the unbearable lightness of purpose in most news shows; it's the sense that everyone is rather too mindful of the backstairs influence of the White House in companies such as Viacom and News Corporation that own the TV news. The anchorman Dan Rather, for example, was eased out by Viacom - CBS's owner - after he wrongly made allegations about the president's time in the Texas Air National Guard. It was not a mistake that required his head on a platter.

Three or four times a year, at a hotel, limited channels to watch, usually only local news and CNN; but that's a time-lapse study of the American emasculation. Lightness of purpose; well, it is only a local, thirty-minute news program Mr Porter is watching. And, Mr Porter is too soft on Dan Rather, who, by the way, is insisting to this day the documents are legitimate and accurate. What's the frequency, Dan; Mr Porter?

The result of this climate of fear and caution is that few Americans have any idea of the circumstances in which 1,600 of their countrymen have lost their lives in Iraq, the hideous injuries suffered by both Iraqi and American victims of suicide bombers, or even the profound responsibility that lies with Rumsfeld for mishandling practically every facet of the occupation. The mission to explain has been replaced by the mission to avoid. If today there was a whistleblower as well-placed, heroically brave and strategic as Mark Felt, one wonders whether he would now find the outlet that Felt did at the Washington Post between 1972 and 1974.

"...few Americans have any idea of the circumstances..." Is Mr Porter pulling words out of his ass along with the flying monkeys of doom? What rock is he living beneath? Has he seen any of the hundreds of weekly polls on the subject? Evidently not. Does Mr Porter actually believe Americans take the war in Iraq as an everyday occurance with no regard for the preciousness of life? Mr Porter, obviously, don'y know doodly-squat about we Yankee Doodles.
"If today there was a whistleblower as well-placed..." He's called the President. "...heroically brave and strategic as Mark Felt..." Already address this man's lack of courage in his inability to do the right thing instead of the illegal thing. "...find the outlet that Felt did at the Washington Post between 1972 and 1974." With the steady decline and almost collapse of the Democratic party since Watergate, and the public's wise perception of the press' erosion, the press has to do something to generate readership. The New York Times laying off over 200 people this past week is a clear indication people are not buying the Leftist spin they, or Mr Porter, are selling anymore. The press seeks out sensationalism. That which it cannot find, they fabricate or negatively spin to sensationalism. The press will make a parking ticket look like an indictment if it will sell more papers than the day before.

The Post's sister publication, Newsweek, has just had its nose rubbed in the dirt by the administration after what is still, I believe, a questionable scandal involving an item alleging that the Qur'an had been flushed down the toilet at Guantánamo.

Hold up, Mr Porter. You actually want us to believe a book can fit down the hole of a toilet? You're kidding me.

Questionable because Newsweek's erroneous report, which was based on an official source, palls in comparison to the illegality of the detention at Guantánamo and the outsourcing of torture by the administration all over the Middle East. And yet Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the humbled magazine should go further than mere apology by speaking out about the "values that the United States stands for ... the values that we hold so dearly".

Mr Porter makes a glaring omission of facts, here. From Newsweek's, Mark Whitaker, "Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited..." (Link)
"...the illegality of the detention at Guantánamo..." Time-honored rules of war and detaining prisoners, enemy combatants, and bona-fide prisoners of war are, and always have been, in place, Mr Porter. Because you don't understand the difference between a uniform and/or insignia and/or a flag and civilian clothing is casting serious doubt on your comprehension skills.
Outsorcing of torture...all over the Middle East." Sending enemy combatants back to their country of origin for detention is not outsourcing torture. You're spinning out of control, Mr Porter.
"...go further than mere apology by speaking out about the "values that the United States stands for ... the values that we hold so dearly". And Scott McClellan is correct in his insistence. Using a source that was "unsure" of where or how he gained the information is irresponsible and not a standard to which the reputable press adheres. Mistakes, happen, sure. But when it's something this serious, especially since the bad guys have been trained in alleging abuse where none exists.
"1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge. 2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison." (Link); (Link); also, (Link)

What is so worrying about the Newsweek story was the cowed reaction of the press. In some cases they scrambled to pay obeisance to the White House's tough line, quite forgetting that the kerfuffle distracted from the worsening situation in Iraq in which scores of lives are lost every day. Marty Peretz, the owner of the New Republic, took space in his own publication to attack the Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who by the way was once the hero of conservatives for his hounding of Bill Clinton.

What is this obssession Mr Porter has with the word "attack"? A little heavy on the adjectives, there, wouldn't you say? Here's the Peretz article.

'The Newsweek delinquency," he wrote, "broaches still another lesson that journalists will have to face, however reluctantly: that confidential sources - especially 'reliable' confidential sources, which may mean eager sources who are too willing to tell because they have their own personal agendas to serve - can be untrustworthy. The Newsweek scandal deserves to exacerbate the debate in the general culture about the legitimacy of anonymous sources that is now burgeoning in American journalism."

Now, what was that again about Newsweek's official source not being certain about what he said...? Oh, yeah. He wasn't sure where he saw it or heard about it. He wasn't sure. But, that's good enough for Newsweek and Mr Porter. It's "close enough". Sorry, doesn't cut it.

This is one of the most knuckleheaded utterances ever made by a proprietor of current affairs magazine. It is plain that, despite all his wealth and shrewdness, Peretz does not possess an elementary understanding of the sacred duty of the press, which, however dishonoured and ignored, is to watch government and make it answerable when the processes of democracy are corrupted by politics and the self-interest of politicians.

Mr Porter. This opinion of yours is one of the most knuckleheaded utterances ever made by an opinion writer. Peretz understands precisely the sacred duty of the press. It is not to watch the government. It is to report the news, factually and without bias. Your latent communism is showing, Mr Porter.

The motivated source that he describes perfectly delineates Deep Throat's position during Watergate. Felt probably did have an agenda influenced by the fact that Nixon had made Patrick Gray head of the FBI when Felt was clearly the better and more experienced candidate. That would have ruled Felt out as a source under a Peretz editorship, even though Felt was primarily motivated by a deep revulsion at what was going on around him. He knew that all investigations into the Watergate break-in and the activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President (Creep) were being fed back to the White House by Nixon's man, Pat Gray. The CIA was also providing Felt's investigators with false leads at Nixon's behest.

As Felt remarked to Woodward long before Watergate, the Nixon White House was "corrupt" and "sinister". Eventually the Watergate cover-up compelled him to the lonely and dangerous role of Deep Throat, but one cannot imagine that this was something Felt - a career G-man who admired J Edgar Hoover - wanted for himself.

Felt was compelled to the lonely and coawrdly role of an "anon" who had an axe to grind. Felt's way of escaping persecution to do his illegal work with Woodward and Bernstein. It was only after Felt left the FBI that he "was indicted on charges of having authorized illegal F.B.I. break-ins earlier in the decade, in which agents without warrants entered the residences of associates and family members of suspected bombers believed to be involved with the Weather Underground." He was convicted in 1980. While his case was still on appeal, Ronald Reagan was elected president, and in 1981, Reagan granted Felt a full pardon.

We must remember that these were dark days. Nixon fought and won an election during the Watergate scandal and, had it not been for the persistence of the Post and the wary guidance provided by Deep Throat, he might well have survived to serve a full second term. Had Peretz been editor of the Post at the time, all that criminality and corruption might well have gone unpunished.

Correction. Had it not been for Mark Felt feeling snubbed because of not reaching the first chair of the FBI and wanting someone to pay for it, Felt's knowing Woodward was a hungry, I-don't-know-what-to-do-with-my-life reporter and supplying him with all the information he could possibly need for the "serial story" in the Post, no persistence by any stretch of the imagination on the part of the Post, and Felt being able to sit back and read his illegal whispers as front page headlines (even though he could have resigned and gone the legal route), Nixon may have made it to a second term.
Interesting that Mr Porter is able to transport himself through time and space and know the outcome of a situation had another person (Marty Peretz) been the editor of the paper. Simply amazing.

It is good that Deep Throat has at last come in from the cold at a time when his country needs many more men and women like him. Let us hope the media are still willing and able to help a great American hero like Mark Felt.

Our country needs no more people who feel "getting away with it" is justified. A great American hero like Mark Felt? He is as guilty of illegal activities as the ones making the break-in at the Watergate (he was convicted in 1980, remember?).

Don't Call Guantanamo a Gulag

2005-06-03T18:59:00.000-07:00

Don't Call Guantanamo a Gulag
By: Rachel Marsden

Some artist uses a crucifix as a swizzle stick in a vat full of urine, and Christians just roll their eyes. But suggest flushing the Koran -- or even dog-earing a copy of Fodor's Guide to the Islamic World -- and the folks who cheered in the Arab Street on 9/11 take it as a green light to riot and blow up more innocent women and children.

This is the crucial difference that Amnesty International doesn't grasp as it threatens to destroy its credibility by making itself a poster organization for anti-American terror apologists.

In its annual human-rights report, issued last week, Amnesty refers to the U.S. prison camp for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) as "the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law."

Reality check: Under normal wartime practices, these enemy combatants would already have been lined up against the nearest wall and shot. "International law" protects prisoners of war who belong to a legitimate national army, not terrorists.

But leftist organizations, such as Amnesty, the International Red Cross and the liberal media, are trying to redefine the centuries-old concept of warfare -- much as they've done with other institutions, like marriage. Now any punk sporting an "Allah is my homeboy" T-shirt and a backpack bomb apparently qualifies as a legitimate POW.

In whining about the "gulag" at GTMO, Amnesty has taken a page from al-Qaeda's own playbook, which advises that captured jihadis "must insist that torture was inflicted upon them by State Security [investigators] before the judge," and "complain of mistreatment while in prison."

According to the U.S. Justice Department, "GTMO remains the single best repository of al-Qaeda information in the Department of Defense." In that case, forget Saddam in his skivvies -- I'm all for having any terrorists being held at GTMO modelling this season's entire Speedo Swimsuit Catalogue, if that's what it takes.

While there may exist a few incidents of serious abuse, merely having people pose for pictures in undignified positions isn't a severe form of "torture." (Here in North America, some would say, that's called "holidays with the family.")

People seem to forget these are military detentions at a time of war, legitimized ultimately by the U.S. Congress at the request of the President. If Amnesty had its way, enemy combatants would have access to O.J. Simpson's courtroom Dream Team. Even under ordinary criminal law, defendants sometimes spend months or years behind bars until a determination of guilt or innocence can be made.

Though the War on Terrorism is still raging, some GTMO detainees have been released to their home countries following a review of their status. While he was in Toronto last week to speak at a fundraiser for the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, I asked 9/11-era New York City mayor (and former mob prosecutor) Rudy Giuliani, when he thought the rest should be released. His response: "We will know the end of the War on Terror when we see a tremendous reduction of terrorist acts -- and we're not there yet."

Until then, Amnesty International needs to get a little perspective -- just as it does with the case of AWOL American soldier Jeremy Hinzman, who was recently denied refugee status in Canada.

During his refugee hearing, Hinzman said he actively sought out the military and specifically wanted a combat role like the ones he saw in war movies. Yet on his Web site, he now claims he was blinded by the army's dazzling marketing campaign. "Molested by Madison Avenue," as Amnesty might say.

Hinzman concedes that he wanted the paid university education that comes with completing a stint in the military. But it seems that while he was a fan of the U.S. military on the big screen, he prefers the French army in his own reality show.

After leaching off the army's free medical, dental, meal and housing plans -- as well as the chick-magnet uniform -- Hinzman spent a few months in Afghanistan. He then conveniently discovered the Quaker anti-war movement and fled to Canada when he was called on to serve in Iraq.

But Amnesty has already announced that if Hinzman's appeal fails and he's deported back to America and held accountable for his dine-and-dash, they'd label him a "prisoner of conscience." I wonder how Nelson Mandela would feel sharing that label with a freeloader?

I'm waiting for the day when "G.I. Bolt" decides that he's fed up with Canada's high taxes, and Amnesty labels him an "economic refugee" seeking to escape the "poor house of our times."

Transcript: Sen. Chris Dodd on 'FNS'

2005-05-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

Transcript: Sen. Chris Dodd on 'FNS'
Sunday, May 29, 2005

The following is a transcribed excerpt of 'FOX News Sunday,' May 29, 2005.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Just 70 hours after senators cut a deal on judges this week, Democrats tied the Senate in knots over the nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador. So what happened to the new era of good will?

For answers, we turn to one of the leaders of the anti-Bolton forces, Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator, welcome.

SENATOR CHRIS DODD, D-Conn.: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

WALLACE: All right. As we said, a group of senate moderates made a deal on Monday to avert the so-called nuclear option, and people said that this may spur a new era of bipartisanship. But as we also said, just three days later, you were one of the leaders of the forces who held up the Bolton nomination.

I know you want some classified documents, and we'll get to the details of those in just a second, but is that so important that it is worth jeopardizing what might have been a new era of good will in the Senate.

DODD: Well, I don't think it needs to jeopardize it at all. And I commend the 14 senators who were able to avoid what would have amounted to eliminating the extended debate rule on judicial nominations. They deserve a great deal of credit for sticking with that and working that out.

But it was never intended that this would eliminate entirely the right of senators to raise important issues when it comes to certain information we need on judicial nominations or ambassadorial nominations.

It's been done in the past. I couldn't help but go back and take a look to see whether or not at any time in recent past history we had a similar fact situation. My good friend, Mitch McConnell, in 1993 held up five ambassadorial nominations because he wanted information totally unrelated to the ambassadors from the state department regarding personnel files from the Bush administration.

When he said that at the time, there was a wonderful quote. He said, "The issue is how do we get information? I've been here not as long as of some other members but I'm unaware of any other device by which we can get their attention."

Bob Dole had a similar statement at that time.

WALLACE: I take your point. But I guess the question is, on this week of all weeks, when there had been this deal, and people are talking about bipartisanship and, you know, maybe we can stop some of the divisions, is that the time that you want to...

DODD: Well, I wouldn't...

WALLACE: ... hold up a nomination?

DODD: ... no, I don't do -- you're right, Chris. I wouldn't have preferred this timing, but I don't set the timing.

The agenda is set by the majority. It was their decision to set aside the judicial nominations, which had been the source of the controversy, and bring up Mr. Bolton. We knew there was a problem.

I think the assumption they made was that Democrats wouldn't want to stand up on this matter, we'll let it get by and go through and we can put Mr. Bolton in the job he'd like to have. I think they were wrong in that calculation.

My colleagues were uneasy about this. They don't like to hold people up. I don't like to hold people up. In my 24 years in the Senate, there have been 52 people that I've objected to, out of 7,000 nominees that have come before the Senate of the United States.

So I don't like doing it either.

But when the majority sets the agenda, they bring up Mr. Bolton on the assumption they were going to get this through.

The majority leader knew, almost a day before the vote occurred, that the votes might not be there for cloture and that maybe the best advice was to put this aside. Let's bring up these other judicial nominations, let's take the recess break, let's try and get this information and come back and vote up or down on Mr. Bolton.

WALLACE: All right, but here's the real key point. The White House says it's not going to give you the documents, that you already have all the information you need.

If you come back from the Memorial Day recess and you still don't have the documents, are you going to continue to try to hold up this nomination?

DODD: Well, first of all, I'm far more optimistic that we can be creative and work something out where the Senate can get the information it deserves to have, and we'll be able to avoid extending further the need to invoke cloture or to oppose cloture. I'm very hopeful during these five or six days we can work something out.

WALLACE: Such as?

DODD: Well, the possibility of working out some arrangement here. We know the names we're interested in, that we'd like to find out whether or not they were on those intercepts. It's not unprecedented.

Remember now, I'm not seeking to see this. I don't think I have a right to see them. I'm asking that Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and that Senator Rockefeller as well as Senator Roberts, the chairman and ranking member of Intelligence, only those four members, be allowed to see this information. We've done it many times in the past.

In the case of John Negroponte, in the case of Richard Holbrooke, there was highly sensitive material from the Justice Department and the CIA that Republicans and Democrats thought they ought to have before they vote on those two nominations. This is not unprecedented.

WALLACE: Has the White House gave you any indication, because they said from the White House podium on Friday, "No, we're not going to give you more information"?

DODD: Well, I'm more optimistic than others are and I'm hopeful it can be worked out, and I'd like to avoid altogether, just let's have a vote up or down on Mr. Bolton when we get back after the recess. I'm still confident we can get some information.

WALLACE: OK. I'm going to get into the details in a minute. But my direct question: If you don't get the information, will you continue to stand on this principle and hold up the nomination?

DODD: Well, we'll see. I wouldn't want to tell you absolutely what we'll do today. Well, let's see what happens at the end of the week.

WALLACE: OK. Let's talk about the documents you're interested in. It's 10 electronic intercepts in which the names of 19 Americans are mentioned. And the chairman and top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller, as you point out, were briefed on these intercepts, although they weren't given the specific names.

And they both said there's no reason to believe after their briefing that John Bolton did anything wrong. Let's listen to what the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, had to say. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: The names were irrelevant because, quite frankly, these intercepts, and he requested only 10 of them, I would describe them as almost pure vanilla.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, why isn't that good enough for you?

DODD: Well, because the issue is the names. The issues are the names of these people here.

The allegations against Mr. Bolton, which provokes this request, were that on at least two occasions on five different times involving two individuals over 48 months tried to have intelligence analysts at both the State Department and the CIA fired.

Fired, Chris -- not just where he disagreed with them but fired because they wouldn't provide him with the intelligence he wanted to have on a speech he was going to give to the Heritage Foundation and some testimony he wanted to provide on different occasions.

WALLACE: As you know, there's some dispute about that, and, in fact, nobody was fired.

DODD: There's no dispute about that at all, no dispute whatsoever. There are about eight different people, including his own chief of staff, who will tell you categorically what he tried to do.

WALLACE: But in any case, what do these names have to do with it?

DODD: Well, because the issue is, was he going beyond what we know he did, to try and intimidate these people in some way? Why was he seeking the names of these individuals? It's very rare indeed for a policy-setter to request the names on the intercepts of the Americans -- very rare for a policy-setter.

WALLACE: But wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. In fact, in the State Department during these years, there were 400...

DODD: Oh, no, wait a second. That's diplomatic security...

WALLACE: Let me ask my question. There were 400 requests for these intercepts, and John Bolton's represented only 10 of the 400.

DODD: Yes, well, the bulk of them come from the intelligence and research division at the State Department and from the diplomatic security section, not from policy-setters. There's a distinction there. This is not that common an occurrence.

And why do you want to see the names? What -- you have to list and give your purpose, your motivation for doing it.

Listen, it may not be much. I'm not suggesting we know these names are going to pop up. Why are they resistant to sharing it with the chairman, the specific names with the committee chairman?

WALLACE: But let me make sure I understand. Because what you seem to be saying -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- is that you believe or you're wondering whether the names of the Americans he was seeking were some of these intelligence officers. And that if he got the information, these people that he had a grudge against, that he might have used that to blackmail them or force them out?

DODD: There's a pattern here, there's a pattern of behavior that raises the question. Again, I don't know that. This has become a bigger issue because of the resistance to share this information.

Remember what I said a minute ago, intercepts and the information in those intercepts have been shared with the intelligence committee on numerous occasions in the past. This is not an unprecedented request. It's not 100 senators looking at it. It's as many as four, maybe as little as two but as many as four, who would have access to this information.

WALLACE: But you say you don't know. I mean, do you have any reason to believe that it was those specific intelligence officers he was trying to get information on?

DODD: No, we don't know that, but remember...

WALLACE: So this is a fishing expedition.

DODD: No, it's not a -- this is a coequal branch of government under our Constitution. This is an important confirmation hearing. There's information that senators would like to have.

I mentioned earlier, when Dick Holbrooke was up, no one batted an eye when they wanted highly sensitive CIA inspector general information about Richard Holbrooke. No one said you don't have a right to that, it's a fishing expedition.

No one thought it was a fishing expedition when we wanted in the case of Mr. Negroponte to get information as well out of the CIA and Justice Department.

So this is not unprecedented. It's an obligation and a right to do our job.

What if we find out, Chris, a month from now, or two months from now, that in fact the names were the names on the list, and it was a process of intimidation? And people would say, "Oh, why didn't you ask for this? Why didn't you insist on getting that information?"

This would be an embarrassment to the president. He'd probably have to withdraw from the post. It would hurt America's prestige at a very important forum.

We're just doing our job. That's what this is all about.

WALLACE: Last point on this, though. John Bolton has testified for eight hours before the committee, you've heard from 29 witnesses, your committee has received more than 800 documents from the administration that you requested. I mean, haven't you gotten enough information to make a judgment? You certainly have enough to make a judgment.

DODD: I would think so. That's why I don't know why there was such resistance to providing this additional information. There are two pieces, by the way. We mentioned the intercept.

There was also a question of whether or not we were trying to make a case, Mr. Bolton was trying to make a case that was not supported by the intelligence that Syria had weapons of mass destruction.

Remember, Chris, the background of this. We've been through a very difficult period over the last several years. We went to war in Iraq principally because we believed -- I voted for us going to war because I believed that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. That's the reason we went in, more than any other reason. We now know that intelligence was flawed.

Mr. Bolton was trying to convince people that there are weapons of mass destruction in Syria, at a time when there was no evidence of that, and he wanted to get intelligence analysts fired because they would not provide the information he wanted in those speeches.

That's frightening to me. And it ought to concern every conservative, or anyone else in politics who cares about these issues. To have people cooking the books, doctoring information is very dangerous.

WALLACE: Senator, we're going to have to leave it there.

DODD: Sorry.

WALLACE: No. Thank you so much for coming in.

DODD: Thank you.

WALLACE: Please come back.

DODD: I will.

WALLACE: You're always welcome.

DODD: Thank you, Chris.

* **** *** ******

i watched this interview. i wish the tone of voice could be conveyed here, but, it can't. Dodd, to me, came off looking exactly as though he were on a fishing expedition.

Wallace brings up over 400 requests for information have been made. Dodd says, well, yeah, but... and then breaks down the alleged ratio and still leaves out the names of the other policy-makers that have requested the same type of information. everything is "yeah, but...". not a good argument.

later, in the panel discussion on the show, Juan Williams begins talking about how the American people want Bolton in as head of the UN. The American people want a strong individual in the position to shake things up. then Juan Willians says, but the people can't seem to come to an agreement and have begin the process of the filibuster.

what people, Juan? the politician people? the ones that are supposed to be representing the American people? the politicians are running their personal agendas. NOT the will of the American people. you have the two confused, Juan Williams. Very sadly confused. As do the Left in America.

Iraq: Former PM Reveals Secret Service Data on Birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq

2005-05-23T21:24:00.000-07:00

Iraq: Former PM Reveals Secret Service Data on Birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq

Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.

On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.

The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more.

He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.

(Ham/Aki)

23-May-05 12:08

Blog Trading

2005-05-19T14:03:00.000-07:00

Who Owns a Blog?

*raising my hand* I do! I do! *laughing*

Well, guess what? I was curious one day and typed the name of my blog into Google. Three results appeared (and the name of my blog is far from something common). Two were links to my blog, one was a link to

http://blogshares.com

Turns out this is a fantasy "stock market" for blogs. *rolling my eyes and laughing* What will they think of next!?

Anyway... my blog is "worth" $1,045.72 in trade (as of today).

Imagine that. *laughing*

If you have a blog and want to see how you rate in their trading pits, use this link (adding your blog name in place of... you understand...):

http://blogshares.com/blogs.php?blog=
http://thenameofyourbloghere.blogspot.com
(connect into one line after the "=")

I'll Be Right Behind You

2005-05-17T17:57:00.000-07:00

A very interesting piece written at BlackFive posted on Michelle Malkin's blog.

And how sadly typical it is of the journalistic mindset... I'll be right behind you and well out of reach of any problems which may arise (remember the scene in Stripes with Bill Murray and Eugene Levy?). A very cowardly act by this so-called "journalist" and an even more grevious omission by Newsweek not reporting the story.

Perhaps it didn't fit into the Bush-bashing agenda in which the elite media is so wrapped up.

The linked article was written in memory of Major Mathew E. Schram, United States Army. Major Schram gave his life in the pursuit of freedom for others. His sacrifice will always be remembered.

About the Story in Newsweek... Kinda

2005-05-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

How about this...

When writing news articles, for any medium, if the source isn't named, the story isn't run.

Look, lets' face facts, in recent history, oh, say from about Watergate to now, the "unnamed source" has become all too familiar a figure in the news.

DeepThroat, for example, *rolling my eyes*, how dramatic was that? How captivating? How well did DeepThroat sell newspapers and make movie stars out of Woodward and Bernstein (Redford and Hoffman), as well as best-selling authors? It was a superlative stroke of genius, whoever dreamed it up, it was spectacular. DeepThroat. How provocative, mysterious, a real page-turner, a real paper-seller.

The story they wrote was, in my lifetime, the first huge, incredible discovery of information implicating so many people of illegal political behavior; all the way up to the president. The facts followed. There was no doubt about it. It was fact. And the hearings bore that out. And one by one they all fell down.

Because DeepThroat was a mixture of several important people, none of whom could be named (or, perhaps they were and we still don't know it), it was here we find the genius. Blending them all together into one very mysterious figure who knew the facts. Good way to go.

But facts matter. That's the difference. There has to be, in the end, balls to the wall, no room to breathe, between a rock and a hard place, the gun's to your chest, the knife's to your throat, the bamboo is under your fingernails, the water is dripping on your forehead... Someone accountable that knows the facts.

Journalistic liars, in need of sensationalism to garner themselves or their publication attention, have all too often gone to the "unnamed source" to get that edge. Journalistic liars completely making up entire situations, circumstances, people, conspiracies. Journalists' reputations are as bad as attorneys and car salesman, these days. They're a laughing stock. Nothing is really read with confidence anymore. Nothing.

Seymour Hirsch. Never names a source. Never. Everything is innuendo and opinion. And he's considered credible? Not in my book. It's this type of journalism that gives journalists a bad name. They've glommed on to the Woodward and Bernstein school of journalism to create sensationalism and doubt. Not cool. Not when society at large is reading what you think happened and believing it as journalistic truth - when it's not. It's only opinion. Personal opinion. That's dangerous. And maybe that's the point. It's sick and twisted, but maybe that's the point.

In the old days, the stories would stand behind who said what. No matter how inane or outlandish, how screwy or important; people were held responsible for their words. What is that old saying? "My word is my bond." not anymore.

There used to be, come on, say it with me...

Credibility and personal responsibility!

Yes! You're right! There used to be.

I know, sometimes a scoop comes along and that informational source just can't be named for security reasons. But everyone reading the story would understand that because the unnamed source "thing" would be so rarely used.

I truly believe, in these times, there are so few circumstances when someone would not want to be named. When you're telling the truth, what's the problem? And, isn't that the point in journalism? Truth?

I’m not talking about personal truth, here, which is, as we all know, opinion. I’m talking about The Truth.

Am I being idealistic? Is the personal and profit agenda so deeply engrained in the (journalistic) human being, that this disregard for truth is inevitable? Is that what I am to believe? Has the world gone mad? People believe the most outrageous things these days without question. Everyone doubts everyone. Everyone is looked at with suspicion and intentions are always circumspect. Everyone so eager to jump into the fray of violence, prejudice, and hate.

Ethics is a foreign word. One to be italicized and scoffed at as something "superior" or hopelessly unattainable, a laughable pipedream.

If that source, in your regular run-of-the-mill story, is unable to have their name associated with the story... Nuh-uh. That information is discounted until such time as it can be confirmed with at least three other people who will give their names.

Why couldn't the person who relayed this information about the alleged desecration of the Koran give his or her name? Why? What possible personal repercussions could result from another's alleged actions? What? I can't imagine one thing.

For the record, the unnamed source said this morning, he couldn't be sure if it really happened or not.

What????? What????? You're not sure? Then what the fuck are you talking about it for?

Yes!!!! Talk with your friends about it, if you want to mull over the possible consequences of such an action, but... To state it as fact to a news publication? A global news publication?

Washington cover-up? I don't think so. This administration has taken the heat for fucking everything from the war to Aunt Emma’s quilting an inaccurate square. Come on. This administration has not hidden from a single thing. Consequences have been given any offending party, investigations are and have been in place on several things, people are being fired, replaced, retired, ousted; some promoted. Every situation has been dealt with, and will continue to be.

You'd think anyone and everyone would want to point the finger at the bad guy here. Behavior, of the type alleged, is unthinkable. Blatantly awful. Not just because of the blatant insensitivity, but because it is a desecration of a holy book. It doesn’t matter if it’s your holy book, it is a holy book. Holy articles are not disrespected. Ever. It doesn’t matter the religion. Holy is holy. I’d want to be able to look at the person responsible for such an action with a just a little bit of an Eastwood squint, wouldn't you? Just be able to look at them with disgust? If it even happened. *lifting my brow*

And now, people have died because someone, unnamed, lied to a journalist and that journalist (or the editors) made the decision to use unconfirmed information as fact. Now, even more people hate America. Even more people want to kill Americans. And it's going to spread like wildfire.

Irresponsible journalism is a disease and it must be eradicated.

SaveArchives.org

2005-05-15T13:08:00.000-07:00

...The administration suggests giving $36 million to the National Archives for the development of a system that could retrieve all types of electronic records. The proposals also eliminate the agency's 40-year-old grantmaking program, which gave money to colleges, universities and local government archives. The 2006 budget request for the Archives is $323 million, an increase of 1.3 percent from 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6211-2005Feb7.html

At first glance, I rushed to the site to add my signature to the list. But, based on politicians and organizations slipping additional verbiage into bills and mission statements unnoticed, or, conversely, those organizations affected by budget cuts leaving out the meat of the matter when only a bit of gristle has been cut away...

break out the A-1 sauce!

by the way, did you notice the "Report Your Activities" at the bottom of their webpage? interesting, isn't it? asking individuals to submit what and to whom they've written regarding the matter.

and, yes, the National Archives do contain geneological information, but even the US government refers people to the Mormons who have the most incredible database of geneology.

The REAL ID Card (National ID)

2005-05-15T12:16:00.000-07:00

I'm okay with this, too. No different than carrying around your 1040 or your medical records. Did you know every medical record in the United States, every visit you make to your doctor, is all stored in central bank/clearing house? *nodding* yup. Whether you like it or not. Some insurance thingy. I kid you not. And no, you cannot get any information from the people at the medical records bank (even though they're your records and you paid for the doctor's services). I don't know why. That's just the way it is.

Thing is... The government has tabs on you now anyway. Everyone that pays taxes and lists the names of their children and dependents, all those social security numbers... They're all stored away. If the government wants you, they'll find you.

What's the difference here? Nothing, pretty much. It's all on a card you have in your purse or wallet. Instant access. Quick turn around if there is a problem.

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to be paranoid about.

Since our borders are wide open, what's your solution to determining who is who on the streets of our cities and suburbs? There is a reason the the floods of people crossing our borders from other countries are called illegal. No documentation, improper documentation, you're illegal.

Do you know what's required to gain entry into Mexico?

Entry requirements for Mexico: the government of Mexico requires that all US citizens present proof of citizenship and photo identification for entry into Mexico. While US citizenship documents such as a certified copy of a US birth certificate, a naturalization certificate, a consular report of birth abroad, or a certificate of citizenship are acceptable, the US embassy recommends traveling with a valid US passport to avoid delays or misunderstandings. US citizens boarding flights to Mexico should be prepared to present one of the above documents as proof of US citizenship, along with photo identification issued by a competent authority. Driver's permits, voter registration cards, affidavits and similar documents are not sufficient to prove citizenship for readmission into the United States.
US citizens do not require a visa or a tourist card for tourist stays of 72 hours or less within "the border zone," defined as an area between 20 to 30 kilometers of the border with the US, depending on the location. US citizens traveling as tourists beyond the border zone or entering Mexico by air must pay a fee to obtain a tourist card, also known as an FM-T, available from Mexican consulates, Mexican border crossing points, Mexican tourism offices, airports within the border zone and most airlines serving Mexico.
Upon arrival in Mexico, business travelers must complete and submit a form (Form FM-N 30 days) authorizing the conduct of business, but not employment, for a 30-day period. Travelers entering Mexico for purposes other than tourism or business or for stays of longer than 180 days require a visa and must carry a valid US passport. US citizens planning to work or live in Mexico should apply for the appropriate Mexican visa at the embassy of Mexico at 1911 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20006, telephone (202) 736-1000, or any Mexican consulate in the United States.
In an effort to prevent international child abduction, many governments have initiated procedures at entry and exit points, including requiring documentary evidence of relationship and permission of the parent(s) or legal guardian not present for the child's travel. Parents of minor children (under 18 years old) should carefully document legal custody prior to traveling to Mexico. If a minor child is traveling with only one parent, the absent parent should provide notarized consent. If only one parent has legal custody, that parent should be prepared to provide such evidence to airlines and Mexican authorities. In cases in which a minor child is traveling to Mexico alone or in someone else's company, both parents (or the sole, documented custodial parent) should provide notarized consent. If a child traveling to Mexico has a different last name from the mother and/or father, the parents should be prepared to provide evidence to airlines and Mexican authorities, such as a birth certificate or adoption decree, to prove that they are indeed the parents. Mexican entry regulations require spanish translations of all legal documents, including notarized consent decrees and court agreements. Enforcement of this provision is not always consistent, however, and English-language documents are almost always sufficient.
(http://www.usembassy-Mexico.gov/eacs.html)

Pretty stiff rules and regulations, huh?

How about a driver's license in Mexico?

Driver’s licenses in Mexico are issued by the 31 states and the federal district, with laws regulating identity requirements for those applying in each state being strict. Typical are the regulations of Baja California, the contiguous state with California. In order to obtain a regular Baja California driver’s license the applicant must know how to read and write, be over the age of 18 (“student licenses” are available for those over 16), and they must show an official photo and signed ID. Those forms of identification accepted include a Mexican passport, a federal or state voter’s ID or military identification. Furthermore, applicants must demonstrate proof of residency through electricity, water, telephone and property tax bills that are less than one month old. They must also have a health certificate no less than one month old. And of course they must pass the requisite written and driving tests.
(http://www.mexidata.info/id262.html)

How about into Canada?

United States citizens and alien resident card holders (known as "green card holders") do not require a visa to visit Canada. Nevertheless, they must have proof of their United States citizenship or permanent residence. The following documents are acceptable as evidence of US citizenship or permanent residence for travelers entering directly from the United States: US citizens: a valid US passport; or, an original US birth certificate plus photo identification; or, an original naturalization certificate plus photo identification. US permanent residents: original alien registration card (green card); or, a valid 1551 stamp in the traveler’s passport. Other documents such as a driver's license or voter registration card will not be accepted as proof of US citizenship.

A driver's license in Canada?

When you apply for your driver’s licence or identification card, your registry agent must verify your identity through a stricter identity confirmation process. After all, what good is the most secure card in north America, if it is issued to the wrong person? A registry agent will require information to satisfy the following three categories: 1. Who you are; photo documents that must contain your legal name and date of birth (DOB). Some examples of primary photo identification are (this is not an all inclusive list): Alberta operator's licence or identification card, photo driver's licence (from another jurisdiction), images on the motor vehicles system (moves), photo identification card issued by another motor vehicle jurisdiction or government issued photo identification, citizenship, immigration, naturalization, or permanent resident card, Canadian armed forces identification card, passport municipal, territorial, provincial or federal police force identification. 2. What you have: support documents that contain two data elements such as name, DOB, signature, address, etc. Some examples of original support documents (certified documents are acceptable) are: birth or marriage certificate, credit, debit or account card (must contain your name and signature), municipal, territorial, provincial, federal government employee card, chequing or saving account statements, cancelled cheque with imprinted name and address, utility, telephone, gas or cable tv bill in applicant's name, property tax bill or receipt, land title or mortgage documents, income tax receipts, insurance documents (life, auto, residential, etc.), some examples of unacceptable support documents are: interim/temporary driver's licence, business cards, cheque cashing cards, library card, video club membership cards, insurance liability cards (pink cards). 3. What you know: verification of personal information against the motor vehicles system; your address, postal code, previous address, vehicle registrations, telephone number, etc. All documents presented must be originals or certified copies. Photocopies will not be accepted. Your registry agent will record the identification number from documents presented. Please note: falsifying information when applying for a driver's license or identification card is a criminal offence.
(http://www3.gov.ab.ca/gs/driverslicence/documents.html)

Wow. Look at all the regulations and requirements just for a driver's license. Pretty good, huh? So, what's the problem with the United States enforcing similar policies and procedures?

What about voting? Don't you agree that every voter should produce valid identification prior to casting their vote? I do. Too many dead Democrats on the roles now. *chuckle* and, with this card, the homeless will have an opportunity to vote, too. Not felons, though, like Kerry and Clinton want. *smirk*

How will the government have more control over you? Remember... The 1040s at the IRS and the medical records clearing house are in existence today.

Why shouldn't we be sure that those boarding planes and entering federal buildings are actual citizens of the United States, or at least, well-documented foreign visitors? How about people taking flying lessons? Are their papers in order? Do they have the required documents? Or, maybe we should let any Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to learn to fly onto the tarmac. Why the hell not? Who cares if the person is an illegal visitor (terrorist) with a suicide vest strapped on tightly for this holy and meaningful flight (mission) and is headed for the movie theatre of your town while you're blissfully in the dark and unaware? When that plane explodes into your town's movie theatre, you can be damn sure there will be an outcry of "Why aren't there stricter policies for entry into the United States? How could this happen? Why did this happen?"

What will change about gun purchasing? Current rules have you provide your home address when filling out the forms for a permit, or for purchase. Seven-day waiting period, and all that. All those forms are sent to the government now, so what's the problem?

None of this is going to stop the illegal gun trade. Nothing will. The criminal element, ne'er-do-wells, and social malcontents will always find a way to break the law.

What are the problems (be realistic - not hypothetical, not supposed) you foresee with the issuance of a National ID card? How will it affect you personally (not your friend or neighbor or someone down the road or in another city)? No one else. Just you. Can't think of a thing that will change for you personally, can you? *smile*

First Lady Steals the Show

2005-05-02T15:48:00.000-07:00

THE NATION
First Lady Steals the Show
Laura Bush pokes fun at her husband and draws big laughs at a White House dinner.
By Leslie Hoffecker
Times Staff Writer
May 2, 2005

WASHINGTON — It isn't often that the president of the United States gets upstaged. After all, being the leader of the free world is about as powerful as it gets.

But Laura Bush firmly pushed her husband aside at the annual White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday, bringing down the house with impeccable comedic timing and a deadpan delivery that put professional comedians — like the evening's headliner, Cedric the Entertainer — to shame.

Before her husband's reelection in November, she appeared content in the traditional role of the first lady, smiling a lot and saying little.

But now that the election is over, and given that her approval rating is more than 30 points higher than her husband's, the administration is putting Laura Bush front and center on the public stage — heading an initiative to keep at-risk children from involvement with gangs and drugs, traveling to Afghanistan to thank U.S. troops for their service and to visit with Afghan women training as teachers, even dropping by "The Tonight Show" last week for a chat with Jay Leno.

Her turn in the spotlight Saturday was not the first time a first lady had stolen the show at such an event. At the 1982 Gridiron dinner — a similar gathering of the media and political elite — Nancy Reagan appeared in thrift-shop couture and crooned "Second-Hand Clothes," a takeoff of her spending habits in the White House, set to the tune of "Second-Hand Rose."

Traditionally, the president addresses the White House correspondents dinner, and this was no exception. President Bush was heading into a joke about a city slicker's encounter with a cowboy — one that he noted had bombed during a recent stop in Montana — when he was stopped by a heckler on the dais: "Not that old joke — not again."

With that, the first lady took charge, delivering zingers about her husband, the large Bush family and her life on the ranch near Crawford, Texas.

"George always says he's delighted to come to these press dinners. Baloney. He's usually in bed by now," she said to laughter. "I said to him the other day, 'George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later.' "

A typical White House evening goes like this, she went on: "Nine o'clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep, and I'm watching 'Desperate Housewives' — with Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife."

Guffaws came from the audience of more than 2,000 journalists, politicians and show business and sports celebrities, including Richard Gere, Al Franken, Jane Fonda and the two quarterbacks of the most recent Super Bowl, Tom Brady of the New England Patriots and Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles.

She noted that she and her husband were "complete opposites — I'm quiet, he's talkative; I'm introverted, he's extroverted; I can pronounce 'nuclear.' "

The president laughed at that one.

She discussed the family she married into, saying of Barbara Bush: "People often wonder what my mother-in-law's really like. People think she's a sweet, grandmotherly, Aunt Bea type. She's actually more like, mmm, Don Corleone."

And the native of the Lone Star State poked fun at her husband's patrician upbringing: "George didn't know much about ranches when we bought the place" near Crawford. "Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program.

"But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse." She paused. "What's worse, it was a male horse."

When she finished, the audience rose in extended — and sincere — applause, although one crowd member may have been a bit miffed by her success.

"I thought I could follow the president," Cedric the Entertainer told the crowd. "But the first lady — that's something different."

Another story...

First Lady Stars at Laughs-A-Plenty D.C. Dinner
May 2, 2005
BY BILL ZWECKER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- Without a doubt, Laura Bush stole the show Saturday night at the 91st annual White House Correspondents Association dinner, surprising the crowd of 2,000 journalists, politicians and celebrities with a cleverly written, fairly racy standup routine that really zinged her husband.

As is the tradition, President Bush started to deliver the joke-filled address, saying, "I always look forward to this dinner, where I'm supposed to be funny -- intentionally." As he began to tell a joke, the first lady walked to the podium and gently shoved aside the commander-in-chief.

"I've been attending these dinners for a number of years, quietly sitting here not saying anything.

"[Tonight] I've got a few things of my own to say."

The first lady had one word for the president's claim that he enjoyed attending the dinner at the Washington Hilton: "Baloney! George is usually in bed by now. I'm married to the president of the United States and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock and Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep. I'm a desperate housewife ... left watching 'Desperate Housewives' -- with Lynne Cheney," who was laughing uproariously, sitting a few feet away.

The first lady joked that recently she and the vice president's wife went to a Chippendale's [men's strip] club, "along with Condoleezza Rice and [top presidential adviser] Karen Hughes."

"But it was OK. [Supreme Court justices] Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Connor saw us there. I won't say what went on, but let's just say that Lynne's Secret Service nickname now is 'Dollar Bill.' "

Mrs. Bush also made fun of the close-knit Bush clan's beloved summer home in Maine. "Kennebunkport is a lot like Crawford [Texas] -- without the nightlife."

As for her mother-in-law, former first lady Barbara Bush, Laura Bush smilingly cooed, "So many parents are not involved in their children's lives. That's not a problem with Barbara Bush. ... She's more like Don Corleone."

The first lady also tweaked the president's image as the rugged West Texas rancher, "complimenting" her husband's work ethic on their Crawford spread -- considering his true background. "He does a pretty good job, considering they don't really have a strong ranching program at Andover or Yale."

Considering he had to follow the first lady's hysterical standup act, no one envied comedian and actor Cedric the Entertainer, who admitted even he was surprised to be invited to perform -- given he's not known for his political humor. Cedric did manage a number of solid quips -- eliciting a big laugh from the president saying, "The best job in the armed services is to be the guy who stands there greeting the president when he gets off the helicopter. He even gets a little TV time!"

While Cedric admitted, "The only time I'm a Republican is during tax season" -- he hoped his participation Saturday "might get me a little break from the IRS!"

The White House Correspondents Dinner also brings together an eclectic assortment of famous faces. Besides the well-known reporters schmoozing with politicos, media organizations often invite Hollywood stars to add some glamor. Here's a rundown of those seen -- and what some had to say:

**Jane Fonda -- exiting the ladies' room -- laughed when asked about sharing a venue with George W. Bush. "Not a usual occurrence, to be sure ... but he is the president of the United States ... and I'm just happy to be here. I'll be interested to see what he has to say."

As she left the gala -- after being surprised with everyone else by Laura Bush's routine -- Fonda said, "I think she was terrific! Very funny stuff. Wow!"

*Mary Tyler Moore was spied "enjoying myself immensely. ... After all, I did play a newswoman on TV for an awfully long time! ... It's just great to be here. I'm a real news junkie ... Love seeing all the people who really bring us the news of the world every day."

*Veteran Illinois Republican leader and diplomat, Ambassador Richard Williamson was happy to be sitting at the same table with Richard Gere. While admitting the two men's politics are very different, Williamson was quick to point out, "When it comes to Tibet, we are totally in agreement." Gere -- a devout Buddhist and major supporter of the Dalai Lama -- has long campaigned to free Tibet from Chinese domination.

Gere himself loved "the dynamic of this event. I've never come to this. ... It's fascinating to see everyone."

*For Chicago-based political consultant David Axelrod, the timing of Saturday's dinner was perfect. "It's serendipitous -- with the Bulls playing the Wizards in Washington the afternoon before the dinner." While Axelrod got to go to the game, his cheering obviously "wasn't strong enough" to prevent the Wizards from crushing the Bulls in the third game of the opening playoff round.

*Others sighted on the run: "The West Wing" star Richard Schiff, liberal comedian and commentator Al Franken ("Yes, this certainly is one party I should be going to"), Arriana Huffington (predicting "very tough days ahead" for her former primary opponent, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger), actors Ron Silver and Dennis Hopper, Princess Diana biographer Andrew Morton, former presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark (laughing when he set off the metal detectors entering the ballroom -- forcing him to be "wanded" by a security guard), Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (acting like any other husband, waiting patiently outside the ladies' room for his wife, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell), Salman Rushdie (spied running around wearing a modified Nehru jacket), Elle Macpherson (doing nothing special except looking absolutely gorgeous -- something she does to perfection) and "Sideways" colleagues -- director Alexander Payne and Chicago's own Virginia Madsen -- enjoying a mini-reunion at the dinner.

*laughing* she was a riot! i saw the video with the Chippendale's joke. the audience was howling and rocking with laughter.

her sense of humor (and sometimes self-deprecating humor, at that!) is wonderful. a gift some politicians and their supporters woefully lack.

interesting the tone difference in the articles, though. for example, "Laura Bush firmly pushed her husband aside at the annual White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday, ..." vs "the first lady walked to the podium and gently shoved aside the commander-in-chief."

The Enemy on Our Airwaves

2005-04-25T15:48:00.000-07:00

The Enemy on Our Airwaves
By DORRANCE SMITH
The Wall Street Journal
April 25, 2005; Page A14

On April 11, Jeffrey Ake, an American, was taken hostage in Iraq. Video of him in captivity was shown on Al-Jazeera on April 13. A short time later six American networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC -- aired the same video, a vivid example of the ongoing relationship between terrorists, Al-Jazeera and the networks. Last week, Al-Jazeera showed video of a helicopter being shot, bursting into flames and trailing smoke as it fell to the ground. It also aired video of the lone survivor being forced to walk on a broken leg and then being shot by the terrorists, one of whom said, "We are applying God's law."

As the war continues, more hostages will be taken and acts of murderous violence committed -- leading to more videos for Al-Jazeera and the networks. Isn't it time to scrutinize the relationship among Al-Jazeera, American networks and the terrorists? What role should the U.S. government be playing?

Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al Qaeda have a partner in Al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the U.S. This partnership is a powerful tool for the terrorists in the war in Iraq. Figures show that 77% of Iraqis cite TV as their main source of information; 15% cite newspapers. Current estimates are that close to 100% of Iraqis have access to satellite TV, 18% to cell phones, and 8% to the Internet. The battle for Iraqi hearts and minds is being fought over satellite TV. It is a battle today that we are losing badly.

The collaboration between the terrorists and Al-Jazeera is stronger than ever. While the precise terms of that relationship are virtually unknown, we do know this: Al-Jazeera and the terrorists have a working arrangement that extends beyond a modus vivendi. When the terrorists want to broadcast something that helps their cause, they have immediate and reliable access to Al-Jazeera. This relationship -- in a time of war -- raises some important questions:

• What does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorist organizations in order to get consistent access to their video?
• Does it pay for material?
• Is it promised safety and protection if it continues to air unedited tapes? (No Al-Jazeera employee has been killed or taken hostage by the terrorists. When I ran the Iraqi Television Network, seven employees were killed by terrorists.)
• Does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorists that it won't reveal their whereabouts and techniques as a quid pro quo for doing business? Is this bargain in the guise of journalism a defensible practice?

While I was in Iraq in 2004, Al-Jazeera was expelled from the country by the Iraqi Governing Council for violating international law. Numerous times they had advance knowledge of military actions against coalition forces. Instead of reporting to the authorities that it had been tipped off, Al-Jazeera would pre-position a crew at the event site and wait for the attack, record it and rush it on air. This happened time after time, to the point where Al-Jazeera was expelled from Iraq. The airing of the Ake video, however, demonstrates that it can still operate on behalf of the terrorists even from outside the country.

Al-Jazeera continues to broadcast because it reportedly receives $100 million a year from the government of Qatar. Without this subsidy it would be off the air, off the Internet and out of business. So, does Qatar's funding of Al-Jazeera constitute state sponsorship of terrorism? As long as Al-Jazeera continues to practice in cahoots with terrorists while we are at war, should the U.S. government maintain normal relations with Qatar? As long as Al-Jazeera continues to aid and abet the enemy, as long as we are fighting a war on the ground and in the airwaves, why are we not fighting back against Al-Jazeera and Qatar, the nation that makes possible the network's existence? Should the U.S. not adopt a hard-line position about doing business with Qatar as long as Al-Jazeera is doing business with terrorists?

In addition to being subsidized by Qatar, Al-Jazeera has very strong partners in the U.S. -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Video aired by Al-Jazeera ends up on these networks, sometimes within minutes. The terrorists are aware of this access and use it -- as in the Ake case -- to further their aims. They want to reach the American audience and influence public opinion.

The arrangement between the U.S. networks and Al-Jazeera raises questions of journalistic ethics. Do the U.S. networks know the terms of the relationship that Al-Jazeera has with the terrorists? Do they want to know?

There has been no in-depth reporting about Al-Jazeera in the U.S. and virtually no scrutiny of Qatar and its relationship with the network. Why not? Is it that the American networks don't want to give up their tainted video? And since they all get the same material and all air it at the same time, do they feel a certain safety being in bed together? The cable networks have become addicted to the latest B-roll video. If that video was obtained by means that violated their own standards and practices, would they air it? Would they even know?

What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused to air the Ake video on the grounds that it was aiding and abetting the enemy, and that from this point forward it would not be a tool of terrorist propaganda? The terrorists know that the airing of such video creates pressure on the government to negotiate a release. It also sends a signal to Americans about the perils of being an American working in Iraq. If the Ake video had never aired in the U.S., the position of the hostage-takers would have been severely impaired. Had it never aired, terrorists would have had no incentive to continue making the tapes.

Is it fanciful to think that network news executives would have the fortitude not to air any video shot by terrorists? They already stop short of airing everything, so why not refuse to touch the stuff altogether? At the very least, is it not reasonable to raise questions about the sources and methods used to obtain this material? The war in Iraq will likely drag on for some time. More lives will be lost and more hostages will be taken and more videos will be made. Now we should engage the terrorists on the airwaves as we do on the ground.

Mr. Smith, currently a media consultant in Washington, spent nine months in Iraq as a senior media adviser to Ambassador Paul Bremer.

Euthanasia vs Medical Treatment Choices

2005-04-22T23:38:00.000-07:00

a thread today on the political corkboard i visit, with my reply:

The Questions

Why is euthanasia so frowned upon in our society?
If a person is able to say..."I want to die" why is it not ok to help them?
But on the other hand, a living will is ok... I understand that the Judeo-Christian ethic is pro-life...but dammit...why the double standard?
Why is it ok to do nothing (through a living will) but not to actively help someone die?

The First Response

euthanasia is a slippery slope... if we accept that it is all right to actively kill someone... that is slip a needle in their vein and take their life because they "request" it... how long before that choice is no longer ours? that is to say.. how long before it becomes "what is good for society"?
we can logically make that jump from "requesting"...to assuming that ones not fruitful to society would not want to "live"...so how hard is it to euthanize the elderly? the infirm? the developmentally disabled?
there is a world of difference between someone who has a terminal, probably painful disease: ie: cancer, MS, alzheimer's, stroke (debilitating to the point they can't eat, or which destroys massive sections of the brain), and someone who is depressed or insane....
someone who is clinically depressed can be treated...and may feel completely different after that treatment...
i would not, as a nurse, assist someone to die...i have been asked...and i am sure others have been as well...my answer to the family who requested it...was just this...
when it is God's time to call you home...it is His time...it is not up to man to make that decision...
after all...what was it the Nazi's were actually trying to accomplish with their final solution? it was a master race of course, without the "dregs" of society... those too ill, infirm, to give back to society....
read z-pop...it was eye opening to me....and abhorent....when life is so cheap we can dispose of those who may not have the qualities that society deems acceptable..then who of us will be safe?
passive euthanasia, ie: not treating infections as they occur, not inserting a feeding tube, not giving blood...is a medical choice...it is allowing nature to take it's course...these medical interventions are new to man...and before they came into being people died from their ailments...
just because we can...doesn't necessicarily mean we should intervene... and it is not euthanasia per se...it is putting your faith in something besides the accepted medical establishment...
i am taking care of a lady right now, who declined a feeding tube... didn't want it... even though she aspirated everytime she tried to eat... we all thought she would die much as shiavo did.... that was 3.5 years ago and the lady is still going strong... she eats... she chokes, and sometimes we have to treat her for pneumonia, but... she did not starve to death as everyone predicted... she overcame... and she eats....
karen ann quinlin is a famous case that everyone recognizes... she didn't want to be on a respirator... and was a long drawn out court case... which ultimately deemed she had the right to refuse treatment.... and what happened? they pulled the tube and she did not die....
just with holding some treatments doesn't mean the person will die... it just means it is left in God's hands.... and what He chooses to do with that life....
if instead of withholding treatment, we had put a needle in their arms... both these ladies would have indeed died.... and that is wrong.... no matter what way you cut it...
no to euthanasia.... yes to treatment choices... which to accept... which to deny...

My Response

why is euthanasia so frowned upon in our society?

i believe it’s seen by many as taking life before it’s “time”. God’s hands.

if a person is able to say..."i want to die" why is it not ok to help them?

i’ve struggled with this one myself.

if the person is a physically healthy adult, i’d believe depression, which is an illness somewhat treatable with medications and therapy, may be doing the talking in this scenario. those words, spoken by a person in the midst of depression, cannot be taken seriously. the emotion behind those words, though, should be taken more than seriously. at that moment, they are not themselves and will, in the long run with proper medical treatment, come back to themselves.

however; if that person is of sound mind and in the midst of a grave and irreversible illness, death the known end, i’d consider the wishes of that person.

judas priest, i’m imagining just that in my mind at the moment and seeing myself agreeing with their wishes, though very reluctantly and very tearfully.

why it’s not okay to assist those with fatal illnesses is, again, a God’s hand belief for most. even if they wish to end their lives, God must decide when. it’s His call.

why is it ok to do nothing (through a living will) but not to actively help someone die?

doing nothing is, to me, letting it play out for God to call.

not wanting to dredge up the past, but the Terri Schiavo situation completely ripped me apart and has been over discussed... i'll refrain from commenting about it further.

the comment “what is good for society” really struck me. for me, abortion has become just that. it’s an empty and hollow reason for discarding unwanted or unplanned life. i agree, it could get to that if legalized. it's an out (financially and emotionally). a selfish playing God mentality (which is so pervasive) to choose who will live and who will die and the reasons for such. who among us can sincerely decide such a thing?

i don’t see hospitals, doctors, or pharmaceutical companies wanting to cut off their flow of cash from the sick, dying, and terminated anytime soon. it’s guaranteed income.

what's that saying? the love of money is the root of all evil.

same in the field of medicine.

Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda

2005-04-21T23:06:00.000-07:00

Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda
Thursday, April 21, 2005

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far." The thrice-married, two-time Academy Award winner covers a wide array of topics, including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for that photo, but not for opposing the war.

Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said that although Fonda did not want to press charges against Michael A. Smith, 54, of Kansas City, he was arrested on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct after off-duty officers caught him just outside Unity Temple, where Fonda was signing books.

Lockhart said Smith was released on bond late Tuesday night and is due to appear in municipal court on May 27.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star on Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the war were unforgivable. He said he normally does not chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site, www.kansascity.com. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

Fonda drew a crowd of about 900 for her appearance, said Vivian Jennings, whose Rainy Day Books of suburban Fairway, Kan., sponsored the event at Unity Temple in Kansas City. Fonda, 67, spoke for about 15 minutes, answered questions for another 15, then began signing copies of her book.

Jennings said Fonda received a standing ovation when she came out and when she finished speaking. Alan Tilson, one of those who had his book signed but left before the incident, said the crowd was very "warm and supportive" to Fonda and he was surprised to learn what had happened.

Jennings said the actress never got up from her seat and continued autographing books after the tobacco juice was wiped off.

"The important thing is that she was so calm and so gracious about it," Jennings said of Fonda. "She was wonderful."

Jennings said that the man had a book to which the name "Jody" had been affixed as he approached to have it autographed. She said that when Fonda got the book, she looked up and said, "You're not Jody."

"At that moment, he turned his head quickly and spit a trail of tobacco juice," Jennings said. "He immediately jumped off the stage and started running down the aisle."

Jynne Martin of Random House, Fonda's publisher, said the actress was flying to Minneapolis Wednesday for another appearance on the book tour she began April 5 and expected to have a statement later.

it would have been better for him to speak through his teeth than spit through them. bad decision. bad behavior. flat out... wrong.

her not pressing charges was, *sighing and wincing*, kind of her. somehow, over the years, i believe she's bluddy well prepared for this kind of confrontation. her not abreacting or pressing charges plays to her now apologetic public personna.

she's gonna get more books sold because of it. too bad she's keeping all the money instead of putting it where her mouth was. i'm sure the veterans' agencies would appreciate a donation to assist in the on-going mental therapies being given the men and women that were spat upon and whose self-images were irreparably destroyed by those she incited to that behavior.

Donald R. May

2004-12-18T02:32:00.000-08:00

Donald R. May
December 18, 2004

The Christmas Deconstruction Alliance just does not get it. They are dumbfounded as they have not been able to secularize Christmas. They throw tantrums because of the tenacity with which the vast majority of us hold onto our Christian beliefs and traditions. They do not understand why the United States does not roll over, accept the abolition of Christmas, close down our churches, and remove the crosses from our cemeteries.

They have failed in their attacks on Christmas, as they have not even convinced most of their liberal following. A recent poll indicated 89% of Americans want religion “included in public holiday celebrations.”

The liberal elite think their superior wisdom, and their control of education and the media, should convince us to become a bunch of pagans. They fantasize we will give up our guns, values, morals, and Constitution. They romanticize we will embrace socialized medicine, tolerate failing schools, and become mindless socialist whimps eager to be euthanized before becoming a burden on society.

Why do fringe liberals, Muslim terrorists, European socialists, and communists all hate Christianity? What is the common thread that joins them? They desire to control others, and they despise the fact Christianity promotes freedom based on personal responsibility. One can’t have Christianity directing people’s lives. The autocrats will direct our lives.

They especially hate Christmas as it is the most visible manifestation of Christianity and is celebrated by more people than any other holiday. The fact that Christ and Christmas are still so feared and hated can mean only one thing; Christ really was who He said He was.

The argument of hurting someone’s feelings or making them feel uncomfortable by celebrating Christmas is one of the most powerful liberal weapons used against Christmas. They put the feelings of the few above the many, and that is not democracy. Their actions are hypocritical, as liberals demand our tolerance all of their abominable behavior.

The politically correct insist we should value everyone’s culture. As Christianity is the majority culture in our country, should it not also be valued? Are we observing an overdose of progressive hypocrisy? Just how long are we going to endure the liberal intolerance of our values?

Nowhere does a “wall of separation of church and state” appear in our Constitution. Most people simply do not know this as they have heard assertions of its existence for so long. We can only hope and pray that in the near future our Supreme Court will enforce our Constitution and cease to reinterpret it as a judicial legislative tool.

In typical liberal fashion, the Christmas Deconstruction Alliance attacks the most vulnerable of our society, our small towns and villages, and our schools. Community and school officials are often terrified or simply unaware of the laws. They cannot afford the time and money to fight the legal challenges. There are also those among them who support the leftist attack on Christianity.

Just what are some of the things opposed by those who would eliminate our Judeo-Christian heritage? For one, we can’t have honesty. If the left’s ideas were honestly stated, the left would become an endangered species.

We can’t have self-reliance, as people are too stupid to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their own actions, especially conservatives.

We can’t have hard work and financial success. Israel and the United States have strong economies that must be damaged or at least economically disabled by the Kyoto Treaty.

We can’t have joy since the liberals and terrorists always are angry about something.

We certainly can’t have giving and charity; that is the job of government. Only government bureaucrats are smart enough to dispense our money. What business does the Salvation Army have of collecting money and giving it to the poor? That won’t get any votes.

We can’t have patriotism either. We might offend our enemies. We also shouldn’t defend ourselves as we might insult some thugs and dictators.

We certainly can’t have cohesive families. Families take care of each other and greatly reduce the need for the government to step in and pretend to take care of people.

We definitely can’t acknowledge we are a God-fearing nation who’s Constitution is based on The Ten Commandments. Why that’s in direct opposition to moral and legal relativism (depravity).

If The Ten Commandments, moral values, prayer, and Christmas are removed from our public schools, we are in grave danger. Public schools would increasingly pretend to educate students while indoctrinating them with more leftist propaganda.

The Ten Commandments have been removed from courthouses and other places where unsuspecting citizens might be exposed to them. Recently, a California school tried to ban The Declaration of Independence from a classroom as The Declaration contained references to God. We certainly can’t have impressionable students exposed to the fact that they are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” All socialists know that our rights come from governments.

If we allow Christmas to be taken from our public life and our educational system, if we allow our Constitution to be turned against us, if we fail to be a light of liberty unto the World, we will also deny freedom to a desperate World that will slip further into darkness. Just like the War on Terror, the battle for Christmas will be long and difficult.

A Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good fight!

Dr. May resides in Lubbock, Texas and is a retina surgeon; he lectures on economics, and he has been on the faculties of the University of Illinois, the University of Texas, the University of California, Tulane University, and Texas Tech Health Sciences University. He has lectured and taught surgery throughout the United States and in Canada, China, India, Japan, Great Britain, and Western Europe.

We're The 'Lose-Lose' People!

2004-12-15T20:09:00.000-08:00

We're The 'Lose-Lose' People!
December 15, 2004
Ann Coulter

Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They should advertise exclusively on MSNBC. Maybe they could even get Al Gore to endorse them and hire Howard Dean as their spokesman. Our motto: "A HUMILIATING DEFEAT EVERY TIME – OR YOUR MONEY BACK!"

Shrum's losing streak obscures the fact that he is also a swine. Among his charming unifying political campaigns, in 1996, Shrum yanked his dripping snout from the political donation trough just long enough to design the commercial against California's Proposition 209 – which proposed banning racial preferences – that featured Klansman, burning crosses and David Duke. (Conforming to pattern: Shrum lost, Californians voted for the Proposition 54-46 percent, and then liberals tried to get a court to overturn it.)

This year, Shrum racked up his eighth loss in an unblemished 0-8 record of losing Democratic presidential campaigns. He's the embodiment of the Democratic Party ideal: Screw up, keep getting hired or promoted. One more loss and his last name officially becomes a verb, as in "we were ahead by 6 points but we ended up 'shrumming.'"

At least Shrum's client only has to go back to the Senate. Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death.

This came as no surprise to those who have followed the fate of Geragos' other hapless clients throughout the years. (Or, to be fair, the evidence against Peterson.) Among Geragos' clients are:

Clinton crony Susan McDougal: spent 18 months in federal prison. In his defense, at least Geragos didn't get Susan McDougal the death penalty. Any additional damage Geragos could do to McDougal's case was nullified when Clinton granted her a presidential pardon hours before he left office. As Susan McDougal assured New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in 1997, Clinton would never pardon her: "He's not going to wake up one day and confer it on me." As to how McDougal knows the way Bill Clinton behaves when he first wakes up in the morning, I'll leave that to your imagination.

Gary Condit: suspected (but never accused!) of involvement in Chandra Levy's disappearance. Condit was never charged with any crime. But he hired Geragos to manage a media campaign to defend his reputation. The next thing Condit knew, he was kissing his 30-year political career goodbye when he lost to his Democratic primary opponent by a whopping 18 points. Or as the kids are saying these days, Condit got "shrummed" by 18 points. The only way Condit could have lost by a bigger margin would be if Bob Shrum had managed his campaign.

Winona Ryder: convicted of grand theft. Instead of having her throw herself on the state's mercy and beg for a plea bargain, Geragos took the case to trial, where the jury had to balance a videotape of Ryder caught in the act of stealing against Geragos' argument that the store security guards were mean to her. (If there was any more to the defense's theory, I missed it.) Geragos boasts that he won a sentence of only community service and probation for Ryder. That might be something to crow about if the prosecutor had asked for anything more than ... community service and probation.

Michael Jackson: fired Geragos almost immediately after hiring him. Jackson has sterile facial masks that lasted longer than this guy. I guess he figured, hey, it's no skin off my nose. As we go to press, Jackson remains a free man.

And now Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been convicted of first- and second-degree murder in a trial that I believe began sometime in the '80s – which is good because you can always catch the trial highlights on VH1's "I Love the '80s."

The only reason to hire Mark Geragos is if the only other attorney left on Earth is Mickey Sherman, aka the "Mark Geragos of the East Coast." And that's only if Long Island gunman Colin Ferguson, who famously represented himself at trial, is not taking new clients.

But even Geragos and Sherman would never sneeringly dismiss evidence in a murder trial as "circumstantial evidence." Only nonlawyers who imagine they are learning about law from "Court TV" think "circumstantial evidence" means "paltry evidence." After leaping for the channel clicker for six months whenever the name "Scott Peterson" wafted from the television (on the grounds that in a country of 300 million people, some men will kill their wives), I offer this as my sole contribution to the endless national discussion.

In a murder case, all evidence of guilt other than eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial." Inasmuch as most murders do not occur at Grand Central Terminal during rush hour, it is not an uncommon occurrence to have murder convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is "circumstantial evidence." Fingerprints are "circumstantial evidence." An eyewitness account of the perpetrator fleeing the scene of a stabbing with a bloody knife is "circumstantial evidence." Please stop referring to "circumstantial evidence" as if it doesn't count. There's a name for people who take a dim view of circumstantial evidence because they don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence: They're called "O.J. jurors."

Speaking of O.J., I keep hearing TV commentators say the Scott Peterson jury was influenced by the O.J. jury. Besides the fact that the jurors themselves say O.J. never crossed their minds until the press started asking them questions, the comparison is absurd. Among the burdens liberals have placed on blacks is the nutty idea that all blacks are obliged to defend the worst elements of their race.

White people don't feel a need to defend Jeffrey Dahmer or Scott Peterson. Go ahead, kill him. If we did, the Judgment at Nuremberg would have ended in a hung jury. In fact, the biggest dilemma we usually face after a case like Scott Peterson's is, "Lethal injection, or Old Sparky?"

Former FBI Agent Cites Penetration of CIA by China

2004-12-15T10:37:00.000-08:00

Former FBI Agent Cites Penetration of CIA by China
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
15 December 2004

China's intelligence service spent years training a spy who posed as a Catholic priest in New York and was part of an escape plan for a Chinese agent in the CIA, according to a veteran FBI counterspy.

Retired Special Agent I.C. Smith said China's use of the masquerading priest was "one of the most fascinating things" about the spy case of Larry Wu-tai Chin, who supplied secrets to China for decades as a CIA translator until his arrest in 1985.

"The People's Republic of China Ministry of State Security took a married Chinese national from the People's Republic and over several years gave him the background to be a priest," Mr. Smith said in an interview.

He identified the agent-priest as Mark Cheung, a minister with the Church of the Transfiguration in New York's Chinatown. "He was actually a Ministry of State Security operative," Mr. Smith said of Cheung.

Cheung was a Chinese "illegal" — a deep-undercover spy dispatched abroad to help in intelligence-gathering operations, he said. Mr. Smith said Cheung "was there to be part of the escape plan for Larry Chin."

According to Mr. Smith, emergency escape plans called for Chin to meet Cheung in the confessional booth of the downtown New York City church. China's intelligence service "spent years on this guy, bouncing him around in the South Pacific, building up a background to make it appear that he was a legitimate Catholic priest."

FBI agents later caught up with Cheung in Hong Kong and questioned him about his activities. But he was "uncooperative" and eventually fled to mainland China, where he is believed to be today, Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Smith, a former FBI special agent in charge in Little Rock, Ark., worked for years in Chinese counterintelligence within the agency. He disclosed new information about China's spy and influence operations in his book, "Inside: A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI." Mr. Smith spent 1973 to 1998 in the FBI.

Chin was uncovered in 1983 and arrested in November 1985. In 1986, he killed himself using a plastic bag in an Alexandria jail cell two weeks after he was convicted of spying for China since 1948. He was revealed after an official of the Ministry of State Security began working secretly for the CIA before defecting to the United States.

The Chinese defector has been identified by U.S. officials as Yu Zhensan, who was code-named "Planesman" by the FBI. He is one of only two major intelligence defections from China. "He was a guy that was being operated in China," Mr. Smith said.

Chin was caught after the defector provided a "sketchy" clue in the early 1980s that an Asian employee of U.S. intelligence was spying for China and had once been delayed prior to a flight to Hong Kong to meet a control agent.

"The source basically said [the spy] came to Beijing, but his flight got delayed," Mr. Smith said. "We go back and find a phone call went in to the [Chinese] Embassy, where it basically said, 'Hey, my flight's delayed, what do I do?' That kind of gave it to us. We looked at everybody on the flight. It was just typical grunt, hard investigative work."

The phone call led the FBI to Chin.

Prior to the FBI probe, the CIA conducted its own probe, but failed to uncover Chin, a translator who was granted access to classified information in 1970. He caused the deaths of U.S. agents by supplying information to Chinese intelligence during trips to Hong Kong, Mr. Smith said.