Here is an update on the Abramoff thing and the Democrats and why they want to keep a low profile - This from the American Thinker-
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on March 5, 2002, asking her to veto an agreement between the state of Louisiana and the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians that would have allowed the tribe to open a casino in Louisiana.
The day after Reid sent the letter, according to the Associated Press, Louisiana’s Coushatta tribe, which already operated a casino, and which was a client of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but which did not want competition from the Jena tribe, sent a $5,000 contribution to Reid’s tax-exempt Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff, the AP reported, also sent Reid’s group a $5,000 contribution. Ultimately, according to the AP, Reid collected more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related contributions.
Now, Reid is asking the Senate Ethics Committee to review the matter and clear him of any impropriety, insisting that he intervened to stop the Jena tribe’s Louisiana casino to protect the interests of casinos in his home state of Nevada and to urge the Interior Secretary to apply Reid’s strict interpretation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). Reid sponsored IGRA, which sought to limit the development of Indian gaming around the country and to disallow such gaming, with few exceptions, on land not already part of an Indian reservation as of 1988.
According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission reports by OpenSecrets.org, (See chart above.) Reid, between 1989-2005, received more than a million dollars in contributions from PACs and individuals connected to the gambling industry.
The analysis indicates that Reid received $158,450 linked to MGM Mirage, a company that not only operates casinos in Nevada, but also runs the Beau Rivage casino in Biloxi, Miss., which might have been a nearby competitor to the Louisiana casino contemplated by the Jena tribe. Contributions linked to MGM Mirage comprised the single largest bloc of contributions to Reid.
Clarice Feldman 1 17 06
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Democrats run for Cover
This funny little ditty came to light the other day and I thought it was something that would play well for the Republicans, but, again, it might bit them in the rear at the same time it bits the Democrats.
In an on-going investigation, a former congressman, and a criminal or sorts, Duke Cunningham, was persuaded to ware a "wire" for the FBI to get evidence on some congressman, which he did for certain compensations, I'm sure.
He was able to collect incrementing evidence against leading members of congress. It didn't say what side of the aisle these fearless leaders were on, and just what the investigation was about, I'm not sure.
But as it turns out, and funnier still, there appears to be details emerging that connect Cunningham to Abramoff and all of the money that he passed around. Maybe this is why we don't hear a lot about this scandal other than it is Republican culture of corruption.
The fact that 40 out of the 45 Democrats in congress are involved might have something to do with a some-what low profile that the case has in the main stream media right now.
So now we, in the media, don't know how many of the good guys are caught up in this mess so we have to use a little common sense on how much bad ink we spread around.
In an on-going investigation, a former congressman, and a criminal or sorts, Duke Cunningham, was persuaded to ware a "wire" for the FBI to get evidence on some congressman, which he did for certain compensations, I'm sure.
He was able to collect incrementing evidence against leading members of congress. It didn't say what side of the aisle these fearless leaders were on, and just what the investigation was about, I'm not sure.
But as it turns out, and funnier still, there appears to be details emerging that connect Cunningham to Abramoff and all of the money that he passed around. Maybe this is why we don't hear a lot about this scandal other than it is Republican culture of corruption.
The fact that 40 out of the 45 Democrats in congress are involved might have something to do with a some-what low profile that the case has in the main stream media right now.
So now we, in the media, don't know how many of the good guys are caught up in this mess so we have to use a little common sense on how much bad ink we spread around.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Along Party Lines
More statistic as if we don't get enough already -
Question; Does the President have the authority to do wire or wireless intercept without a court order?
50% should
36% not 6% not sure
Question; Should the President have the power to do computer searches of phone calls in and out of the country?
60% should
34% not 7% not sure
Question; Is the Patriot Act a good thing for the country?
53% good
30% bad 13% mixed
Question; Should the Patriot Act be extended?
57% support
31% oppose 11% not sure
These numbers are similar to those that I gave you yesterday and, I believe, the reasons they look similar, for the same reason. Everything seems to come down to party lines. Common sense doesn't play a large role.
The liberals and the Democrats see America's role in the world as limited to minding our own business until something bad happens, then they work over time to find a scape-goat for not being able to take the responsibility to safe guard the country. It has always been this way.
Some people will always vote to save their own skin regardless of the consequences, claiming they don't see a problem or refuse to admit that one exist. There own little worlds are all they care about. Cars Houses Jobs Friends laughter Movies Parties More laughter -
Conservatives and Republicans see America as a responsible member of a world community, and, as the only super power, has to take a world responsibility outlook of protecting ourselves against all those that want us dead or powerless so they can take what they want from whom ever they want.
Conservatism see America as an anchor of freedom. Without American influence, there can only be chaos in the world. There isn't even anyone close that could do what we have to do to maintain world order.
So where does that leave us on the war, the economy or just about anything that one can think of that is important enough to debate?
The Democrats see the glass as half or completely empty, while the Republicans see the glass as half full and filling.
The Democrats see the war as lost and wrong no matter what is at stake, and the Republicans see the war as something that has to be fought to protect ourselves and our children from the worst enemy in our history.
The economy to the liberal Democrats is going into the dumper, the conservatism see more employment and less unemployment then in the last ten years. Facts in black and white and proven over months and months make little difference to the socialist left. Blind is as blind does.
Who's right? Who's on the wrong track? Which side makes more sense? How can a poll find this out? They can't. They can only approximate a guess. No one will really know for sure until it's time to vote.
Question; Does the President have the authority to do wire or wireless intercept without a court order?
50% should
36% not 6% not sure
Question; Should the President have the power to do computer searches of phone calls in and out of the country?
60% should
34% not 7% not sure
Question; Is the Patriot Act a good thing for the country?
53% good
30% bad 13% mixed
Question; Should the Patriot Act be extended?
57% support
31% oppose 11% not sure
These numbers are similar to those that I gave you yesterday and, I believe, the reasons they look similar, for the same reason. Everything seems to come down to party lines. Common sense doesn't play a large role.
The liberals and the Democrats see America's role in the world as limited to minding our own business until something bad happens, then they work over time to find a scape-goat for not being able to take the responsibility to safe guard the country. It has always been this way.
Some people will always vote to save their own skin regardless of the consequences, claiming they don't see a problem or refuse to admit that one exist. There own little worlds are all they care about. Cars Houses Jobs Friends laughter Movies Parties More laughter -
Conservatives and Republicans see America as a responsible member of a world community, and, as the only super power, has to take a world responsibility outlook of protecting ourselves against all those that want us dead or powerless so they can take what they want from whom ever they want.
Conservatism see America as an anchor of freedom. Without American influence, there can only be chaos in the world. There isn't even anyone close that could do what we have to do to maintain world order.
So where does that leave us on the war, the economy or just about anything that one can think of that is important enough to debate?
The Democrats see the glass as half or completely empty, while the Republicans see the glass as half full and filling.
The Democrats see the war as lost and wrong no matter what is at stake, and the Republicans see the war as something that has to be fought to protect ourselves and our children from the worst enemy in our history.
The economy to the liberal Democrats is going into the dumper, the conservatism see more employment and less unemployment then in the last ten years. Facts in black and white and proven over months and months make little difference to the socialist left. Blind is as blind does.
Who's right? Who's on the wrong track? Which side makes more sense? How can a poll find this out? They can't. They can only approximate a guess. No one will really know for sure until it's time to vote.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Bush's Numbers Slide - maybe
This is from NewsMax today - I have to pass it along even though I don't believe it's accurate. Polls can give you what ever result you want - the last time an ABC/Time poll came out with bad numbers for the President, it was found leaning to the left by a 60 to 40 percent margin. The result were predictable. Democrats didn't like Bush or what he is doing but Republicans did - go figure.
This poll by Zogby seems, on the surface, to be note worthy but I still think they are not capturing the true American public. I refuse to believe that only 34% of the American public feel Bush is doing a good job of managing the war. People can not be that unaware of what is going on around them.
I know that 48% of the voting public went for Kerry in 2004, which shook my confidence in basic common sense, but I have to believe that that election was a high water mark for Liberal Democrats. Anyone with half a brain can see that this country is going in the right direction when they look at employment is up, unemployment is at historic lows, wages are rising at 3.2% on the average, exports are up, the deficit is shrinking, the market went over 11,000, the GDP rising for twelve straight quarters etc. I have to have faith that in the end people will see how well off they are, as well as safer.
When the results, taken in historic perspective, like how long did it take to rebuild Japan and Germany, and why we still have troops there, are beyond anyone early estimates as to how far the Iraqi people could come in two years, even with the great loss of life from the terrorist. What reasons could the American people have to say we are not managing the war effort properly.
The following is interesting at first blush, but always keep in mind, even pollsters have certain biases no matter how hard they may try to keep them out. Some pollsters make sure the the numbers come out the way they want to. In past years it was possible to have this kind of thing go unchecked - that's over -
In the face of rising gas prices, partisan sniping over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and a resumption of insurgent violence in Iraq, President Bush's job approval rating has slipped into a post-holiday funk, again dipping below 40%, a new telephone poll by Zogby International shows.
His approval rating almost mirrors the percentage of respondents (40%) who said the nation overall is headed in the right direction.
The deterioration in the President's numbers appears to be the result of eroding support among the investor class and others who supported him in his 2004 re-election bid, said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. And the problem is the Iraq war - just 34% of respondents said Mr. Bush was doing a good or excellent job managing the war, down from 38% approval in a Zogby poll taken in mid-October.
Bush's overall job approval rating in that poll was at 46%.
Among investors, Bush's support for managing the war dropped five points since October, from 45% to 40%, Zogby data shows.
But Zogby said the glaring split between how Republicans, Democrats and independents think the President is handling Iraq is remarkable.
"The numbers in support for the war in Iraq are extremely low among Democrats and independents," Zogby said. "This is a partisan war."
While 61% of Republicans said he was doing a good job managing the war (down from 70% in October), just 11% of Democrats and 28% of independents gave him good marks in that area. Among Democrats, 71% said Bush was doing a "poor" job with the war, while 17% said he was doing only a "fair" job.
Among men, 36% said the President was handling the war well, while 31% of women agreed.
Bush has retained a base of support for his handling of the broader war on terror, as 46% said he is doing a good job, down just one percent since October. His management of the war on terror had been a consistently bright spot for the President since the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, before dipping below 50% last year.
However, half of those surveyed said they feel safer with Bush as President, compared to 38% who said they feel less safe.
Respondents rated the war in Iraq and the war on terror as the two top issues facing America. Jobs and the economy were also important, they said, with health care coming in a distant fourth, followed by concern over gas and fuel prices.
Asked about his leadership of foreign policy in general, 36% said Bush was doing a good job.
Asked about which party they would support when making a decision about the race for Congress in their home district, Democrats maintained a 33% to 26% edge over Republicans.
But as the nation's capital sinks further into scandal talk revolving around Congress and allegations of improper gifts doled out by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the poll shows the public has yet to hold one party more responsible than the other.
Despite Democratic efforts to paint the Abramoff influence-pedaling case as a Republican scandal, the GOP holds a slight advantage in the minds of respondents when it comes to integrity - 35% said they believed Republicans have more integrity, while 34% gave the nod to Democrats. 19% said neither party had integrity.
The nationwide Zogby poll, conducted Jan. 9-12, included 1,030 interviews and carries a margin of error of + / - 3.1 percentage points.
This poll by Zogby seems, on the surface, to be note worthy but I still think they are not capturing the true American public. I refuse to believe that only 34% of the American public feel Bush is doing a good job of managing the war. People can not be that unaware of what is going on around them.
I know that 48% of the voting public went for Kerry in 2004, which shook my confidence in basic common sense, but I have to believe that that election was a high water mark for Liberal Democrats. Anyone with half a brain can see that this country is going in the right direction when they look at employment is up, unemployment is at historic lows, wages are rising at 3.2% on the average, exports are up, the deficit is shrinking, the market went over 11,000, the GDP rising for twelve straight quarters etc. I have to have faith that in the end people will see how well off they are, as well as safer.
When the results, taken in historic perspective, like how long did it take to rebuild Japan and Germany, and why we still have troops there, are beyond anyone early estimates as to how far the Iraqi people could come in two years, even with the great loss of life from the terrorist. What reasons could the American people have to say we are not managing the war effort properly.
The following is interesting at first blush, but always keep in mind, even pollsters have certain biases no matter how hard they may try to keep them out. Some pollsters make sure the the numbers come out the way they want to. In past years it was possible to have this kind of thing go unchecked - that's over -
In the face of rising gas prices, partisan sniping over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and a resumption of insurgent violence in Iraq, President Bush's job approval rating has slipped into a post-holiday funk, again dipping below 40%, a new telephone poll by Zogby International shows.
His approval rating almost mirrors the percentage of respondents (40%) who said the nation overall is headed in the right direction.
The deterioration in the President's numbers appears to be the result of eroding support among the investor class and others who supported him in his 2004 re-election bid, said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. And the problem is the Iraq war - just 34% of respondents said Mr. Bush was doing a good or excellent job managing the war, down from 38% approval in a Zogby poll taken in mid-October.
Bush's overall job approval rating in that poll was at 46%.
Among investors, Bush's support for managing the war dropped five points since October, from 45% to 40%, Zogby data shows.
But Zogby said the glaring split between how Republicans, Democrats and independents think the President is handling Iraq is remarkable.
"The numbers in support for the war in Iraq are extremely low among Democrats and independents," Zogby said. "This is a partisan war."
While 61% of Republicans said he was doing a good job managing the war (down from 70% in October), just 11% of Democrats and 28% of independents gave him good marks in that area. Among Democrats, 71% said Bush was doing a "poor" job with the war, while 17% said he was doing only a "fair" job.
Among men, 36% said the President was handling the war well, while 31% of women agreed.
Bush has retained a base of support for his handling of the broader war on terror, as 46% said he is doing a good job, down just one percent since October. His management of the war on terror had been a consistently bright spot for the President since the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, before dipping below 50% last year.
However, half of those surveyed said they feel safer with Bush as President, compared to 38% who said they feel less safe.
Respondents rated the war in Iraq and the war on terror as the two top issues facing America. Jobs and the economy were also important, they said, with health care coming in a distant fourth, followed by concern over gas and fuel prices.
Asked about his leadership of foreign policy in general, 36% said Bush was doing a good job.
Asked about which party they would support when making a decision about the race for Congress in their home district, Democrats maintained a 33% to 26% edge over Republicans.
But as the nation's capital sinks further into scandal talk revolving around Congress and allegations of improper gifts doled out by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the poll shows the public has yet to hold one party more responsible than the other.
Despite Democratic efforts to paint the Abramoff influence-pedaling case as a Republican scandal, the GOP holds a slight advantage in the minds of respondents when it comes to integrity - 35% said they believed Republicans have more integrity, while 34% gave the nod to Democrats. 19% said neither party had integrity.
The nationwide Zogby poll, conducted Jan. 9-12, included 1,030 interviews and carries a margin of error of + / - 3.1 percentage points.
United Nations for Whom?
I believe the United Nations must be reorganized completely from top to bottom before the United States gives them one more dime! The alternative, which I have mentioned in a previous post, is to move the whole operation to some other location.
In light of a letter sent to Kofi Annan from John Bolton, our ambassador to the UN, concerning a meeting that was organized by the Palestinian Solidarity Division of the UN that presented a map of the area without the state of Israel, Mr. Bolton wanted to know who in the UN approved the map and who decided to display it for all to see? Of course, if they didn't displayed the map would that have made the situation okay? Hardly.
The organizers stated the the maps has always looked this way because it is a map from 1948 before the Israeli state was formed. This makes sense as it is the way they want the situation to look now as well.
With Iran openly committed to the total annihilation of Israel, along with the declarations of Hamas to destroy the state of Israel by shoving them into the sea, this organization, and it's map, are taking the destruction of the Jewish state to it final conclusion with tax payers money.
At this time the UN had budgeted $5,449,000 in 2004 - 2005 to the Division of Palestinian Rights organization along with another $566,000 to the Information Activities On the Question of Palestine committee. Hang on, there's more and it gets better. $245,500 was budgeted to the committee to Investigate Israeli practice's Affecting Human Rights of the Palestinians and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. The new budget for 2006 is similar.
I wonder how much was budgeted to investigate how many Israelis have been killed in rocket attacks and suicide bombings? Maybe they don't need funding for that - it's just something the Arab states find fun to do.
The organizers of this incredible biased and anti-Semitic committee stated that most of the members states thought it was correct to display a map of the middle east without Israel. Apparently this has been the practice since 1977 even over the objections of the US and Israel.
Question: why have we let this go on this long, and how can we stop funding this terrorist organization, the United Nations, that's operating in our own country?
In light of a letter sent to Kofi Annan from John Bolton, our ambassador to the UN, concerning a meeting that was organized by the Palestinian Solidarity Division of the UN that presented a map of the area without the state of Israel, Mr. Bolton wanted to know who in the UN approved the map and who decided to display it for all to see? Of course, if they didn't displayed the map would that have made the situation okay? Hardly.
The organizers stated the the maps has always looked this way because it is a map from 1948 before the Israeli state was formed. This makes sense as it is the way they want the situation to look now as well.
With Iran openly committed to the total annihilation of Israel, along with the declarations of Hamas to destroy the state of Israel by shoving them into the sea, this organization, and it's map, are taking the destruction of the Jewish state to it final conclusion with tax payers money.
At this time the UN had budgeted $5,449,000 in 2004 - 2005 to the Division of Palestinian Rights organization along with another $566,000 to the Information Activities On the Question of Palestine committee. Hang on, there's more and it gets better. $245,500 was budgeted to the committee to Investigate Israeli practice's Affecting Human Rights of the Palestinians and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. The new budget for 2006 is similar.
I wonder how much was budgeted to investigate how many Israelis have been killed in rocket attacks and suicide bombings? Maybe they don't need funding for that - it's just something the Arab states find fun to do.
The organizers of this incredible biased and anti-Semitic committee stated that most of the members states thought it was correct to display a map of the middle east without Israel. Apparently this has been the practice since 1977 even over the objections of the US and Israel.
Question: why have we let this go on this long, and how can we stop funding this terrorist organization, the United Nations, that's operating in our own country?
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Koppel Joins NPR -
I just was reading about Ted Koppel leaving ABC after 25 years on Night Line to join the NPR network. What a news flash! Where else could he go -
I recall when he first started on Nightline, he was pretty even handed But then, in the last ten or so years, he started to mind-meld with the more news indigent left wing commentators like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.
As a result, as anyone could see by watching the show, he was transformed from tell the truth to telling what he thought was the truth, or should be the truth.
When your ego takes over your soul and you start listening to what the critics say about how wonderful you are, especially when the critics are in the same business that you are, you begin to believe that no matter what you say, it's gospel.
You are the soul embodiment of what is important and right. You have given your blessing to this version of the truth as you understand it, so, therefore, it is the truth. No questions asked. We have to believe it - after all, Ted is a professional journalist, and has been for 25 years, just like Dan Rather.
What happens to these people when they finally come to the realization that they are the very center of the universe? When they sit in front of the camera, the world falls silent because Ted Koppel is about to speak the truth, according to the gospel of the liberal left puppet masters. The very fabric of the universe has become clearer, hasn't It? Hmmmm - maybe not - maybe he had to leave after all of those years, because the general public became too stupid to understand how insightful he had become. Could be -
But don't feel to bad for our boy, Ted is headed into his second career now as he joins NPR as commentator and analyst on breaking news stories. What better place than on a tax supported news network that supports all things left of Lenin - just as they hired Daniel Shore after he exposed the top secret pentagon papers that Daniel Elsberg stole while working for the government. Sound familiar?
What is it that Yoga Berria said about this sort of situation - "it's deja vue all over again" - but this time it will be harder to get away with it -
I recall when he first started on Nightline, he was pretty even handed But then, in the last ten or so years, he started to mind-meld with the more news indigent left wing commentators like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.
As a result, as anyone could see by watching the show, he was transformed from tell the truth to telling what he thought was the truth, or should be the truth.
When your ego takes over your soul and you start listening to what the critics say about how wonderful you are, especially when the critics are in the same business that you are, you begin to believe that no matter what you say, it's gospel.
You are the soul embodiment of what is important and right. You have given your blessing to this version of the truth as you understand it, so, therefore, it is the truth. No questions asked. We have to believe it - after all, Ted is a professional journalist, and has been for 25 years, just like Dan Rather.
What happens to these people when they finally come to the realization that they are the very center of the universe? When they sit in front of the camera, the world falls silent because Ted Koppel is about to speak the truth, according to the gospel of the liberal left puppet masters. The very fabric of the universe has become clearer, hasn't It? Hmmmm - maybe not - maybe he had to leave after all of those years, because the general public became too stupid to understand how insightful he had become. Could be -
But don't feel to bad for our boy, Ted is headed into his second career now as he joins NPR as commentator and analyst on breaking news stories. What better place than on a tax supported news network that supports all things left of Lenin - just as they hired Daniel Shore after he exposed the top secret pentagon papers that Daniel Elsberg stole while working for the government. Sound familiar?
What is it that Yoga Berria said about this sort of situation - "it's deja vue all over again" - but this time it will be harder to get away with it -
Friday, January 13, 2006
Some See No Evil - Others ?
Just a small thing to think about - for the first time, news caster are beginning to refer to the person or persons that released the NSA top secret intercepts as traitors.
The latest poll indicates 50% think they are traitors and 27% think they are just whistle blowers. 23% don't know what to think -
Progress -
The latest poll indicates 50% think they are traitors and 27% think they are just whistle blowers. 23% don't know what to think -
Progress -
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Empty Suits
What a day in the life of a Supreme Court nominee! The liberals became unhinged making accusations that were meant to de-humanize Judge Alito and crush his reputation, but instead it demoralized his wife to such a degree that she left the room in tears. Actually she left after Senator Lindsey Graham apologized for the behavior of some of the panel members that suffer from diminished capacity.
Probably what happened was she teared-up because, after Graham's apology, she saw that she and her husband weren't alone against the dirty dozen of Congress. It was a release from the stress of the gut-wrenchingly brutal attacks that she felt when they questioned her husband.
Orrin Hatch also got a few jabs in on the intellectually challenged Democrats with his statement that Mrs. Alito was very up set by the over-the-top attacks that her husband had to endure and that she should not have to put up with it.
Why was it even necessary to have to say that about our finest leaders, mental midgets, while they are questioning an intellectual giant for our highest court?
The Democrats came into this fight without any weapons except an unbridled hate for anything conservative. They came in without any self discipline or common sense. They are intellectually and morally bankrupt. They an embarrassment to the nation.
Here is something that's over-the-top as well. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold are getting together to discuss how they can impeach the President. Eight Democratic congressmen have indicated that they will join in the effort. They have stated that they believe that there is some violations of Presidential powers and that constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors which, if proved, are an impeachable offenses.
These members of Congress are not to be trusted in any capacity in our national government. They have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they do not have the best interests of this country as their most important objective.
Russ Feingold is running for President of the United States? - conferring with Ted Kennedy on anything makes Feingold ineligible even for dog catcher.
Probably what happened was she teared-up because, after Graham's apology, she saw that she and her husband weren't alone against the dirty dozen of Congress. It was a release from the stress of the gut-wrenchingly brutal attacks that she felt when they questioned her husband.
Orrin Hatch also got a few jabs in on the intellectually challenged Democrats with his statement that Mrs. Alito was very up set by the over-the-top attacks that her husband had to endure and that she should not have to put up with it.
Why was it even necessary to have to say that about our finest leaders, mental midgets, while they are questioning an intellectual giant for our highest court?
The Democrats came into this fight without any weapons except an unbridled hate for anything conservative. They came in without any self discipline or common sense. They are intellectually and morally bankrupt. They an embarrassment to the nation.
Here is something that's over-the-top as well. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold are getting together to discuss how they can impeach the President. Eight Democratic congressmen have indicated that they will join in the effort. They have stated that they believe that there is some violations of Presidential powers and that constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors which, if proved, are an impeachable offenses.
These members of Congress are not to be trusted in any capacity in our national government. They have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they do not have the best interests of this country as their most important objective.
Russ Feingold is running for President of the United States? - conferring with Ted Kennedy on anything makes Feingold ineligible even for dog catcher.
Terrorists in the Media
This is from Power Line blog and says that we have more to fear from domestic terrorists, the media and certain legislators, then we do from bin ladin - this is long but well worth the effort as we come to grips with the threat that we face in this country.
The mainstream U.S. media outlets have failed to report a major terrorist plot against the U.S. - because it would tend to support President Bush's use of NSA domestic surveillance, according to media watchdog groups.
News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S., but went virtually unreported in the American media.
Italian authorities recently announced that they had used wiretaps to uncover the conspiracy to conduct a series of major attacks inside the U.S. Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11.
Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad.
Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama's chief aides in planning the attacks. The arrests were a major coup for Italian anti-terror forces, and the story was carried in most major newspapers from Europe to China.
"U.S. terror attacks foiled," read the headline in England's Sunday Times. In France, a headline from Agence France Presse proclaimed, "Three Algerians arrested in Italy over plot targeting U.S."
Curiously, what was deemed worthy of a worldwide media blitz abroad was virtually ignored by the U.S. media, and conservative media watchdog groups are saying that is no accident.
"My impression is that the major media want to use the NSA story to try and impeach the president," says Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media Report published by the grassroots Accuracy in Media organization.
"If you remind people that terrorists actually are planning to kill us, that tends to support the case made by President Bush. They will ignore any issue that shows that this kind of [wiretapping] tactic can work in the war on terror."
The mainstream U.S. media outlets have failed to report a major terrorist plot against the U.S. - because it would tend to support President Bush's use of NSA domestic surveillance, according to media watchdog groups.
News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S., but went virtually unreported in the American media.
Italian authorities recently announced that they had used wiretaps to uncover the conspiracy to conduct a series of major attacks inside the U.S. Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11.
Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad.
Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama's chief aides in planning the attacks. The arrests were a major coup for Italian anti-terror forces, and the story was carried in most major newspapers from Europe to China.
"U.S. terror attacks foiled," read the headline in England's Sunday Times. In France, a headline from Agence France Presse proclaimed, "Three Algerians arrested in Italy over plot targeting U.S."
Curiously, what was deemed worthy of a worldwide media blitz abroad was virtually ignored by the U.S. media, and conservative media watchdog groups are saying that is no accident.
"My impression is that the major media want to use the NSA story to try and impeach the president," says Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media Report published by the grassroots Accuracy in Media organization.
"If you remind people that terrorists actually are planning to kill us, that tends to support the case made by President Bush. They will ignore any issue that shows that this kind of [wiretapping] tactic can work in the war on terror."
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
The Alito Smackdown!
Judge Alito is turning the attack of the bimbo Democrats into a 'smackdown' of the bimbo Democrats. Turn-about is fair play - the tables are turned - it's a topsy-turvy world. The puppet masters hate it when this happens, because they wrote the script that the Democrats are using to make fools out of themselves.
What's really out standing is they have been preparing for this for months. Ted Kennedy even brought in a special guy to help him dig up dirt on Alito, and still they have their heads handed to them.
It seems that he is just a regular guy. His whole family are at the hearings. It is said that he has the smarts of Roberts but not the polish. So what! I believe that is what is needed on the court. Someone that can interpret the constitution as it is written, and then decide a case using the rule of law. Judges do not make laws. A Supreme Court judge is the last word on conflict within the law.
If we wanted someone that stood for nothing, was very political, could be bought off and put on a good show for the committee, we could have gotten any Democrat to fill the spot. Instead we demanded, and got, a solid judge that has a great record of experience to back him up, and one that will serve him well into the future.
So far he has the support of 8 liberal Democrats. Not all of the Republicans in the senate will vote for him when it comes to an 'up or down' vote. I don't understand why that is. They are called RINO's. (Republicans in name only) But it's estimated that there are enough votes over-all to get him confirmed. It shouldn't even be close. I hope so as I want this to be over and done with so we can turn our attention to other things.
What's really out standing is they have been preparing for this for months. Ted Kennedy even brought in a special guy to help him dig up dirt on Alito, and still they have their heads handed to them.
It seems that he is just a regular guy. His whole family are at the hearings. It is said that he has the smarts of Roberts but not the polish. So what! I believe that is what is needed on the court. Someone that can interpret the constitution as it is written, and then decide a case using the rule of law. Judges do not make laws. A Supreme Court judge is the last word on conflict within the law.
If we wanted someone that stood for nothing, was very political, could be bought off and put on a good show for the committee, we could have gotten any Democrat to fill the spot. Instead we demanded, and got, a solid judge that has a great record of experience to back him up, and one that will serve him well into the future.
So far he has the support of 8 liberal Democrats. Not all of the Republicans in the senate will vote for him when it comes to an 'up or down' vote. I don't understand why that is. They are called RINO's. (Republicans in name only) But it's estimated that there are enough votes over-all to get him confirmed. It shouldn't even be close. I hope so as I want this to be over and done with so we can turn our attention to other things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
