According to WaPo the House Ethics Committee investigation is going to focus on the way the information was handled. We might actually get an answer to the question, "If you were so concerned about improper conduct with pages why did you sit on the information until now?"
There is also the issue of the parade of "heroic whistleblowers" who pop up just as the previous one is discredited (one of the pages turned out to be 18 at the time and one is claiming it was a prank gone bad). There is also the matter of the StopSexualPredators blog that even some at Kos think is a little too convenient.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
A Prank?
DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2006� I'm going to let this speak for itself"
Sorry, but this goes beyond a prank.
Don't get me wrong, this does not absolve Foley in the least. He should have never put himself into the position for this to have happened. The people of his disrtict are better served by his being replaced.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX
CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.
The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the investigation.
The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.
The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.
Developing...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2006
Sorry, but this goes beyond a prank.
Don't get me wrong, this does not absolve Foley in the least. He should have never put himself into the position for this to have happened. The people of his disrtict are better served by his being replaced.
Now, In My best Emily Litella voice...
The DRUDGE REPORT seems to have added a new wrinkle to the Mark Foley mess. It seems that his "underaged victim" was really eighteed at the time the IMs were exchanged. Unless there is evidence (Nancy Pelosi's speculations do not count as evidence) that he did in fact engage in sexually explicit communication with a minor then the criminal matter should be dropped.
That said, there is, however, the issue of unethical behavior regarding such communication with a subordinate. Such sexual misconduct must be addressed. It is obvious that Mr. Foley lacks the judgement and scruples that should be necessary to sit in the Congress...in a perfect world. Given the current make up of the political class in Washington, he seems to fit right in.
HT: Sister Toldja
That said, there is, however, the issue of unethical behavior regarding such communication with a subordinate. Such sexual misconduct must be addressed. It is obvious that Mr. Foley lacks the judgement and scruples that should be necessary to sit in the Congress...in a perfect world. Given the current make up of the political class in Washington, he seems to fit right in.
HT: Sister Toldja
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
YouTube? No, It's Me Tube
Michelle Malkin's video, "First They Came" has been banned by You Tube for the catch-all dodge of a reason "terms of use violation". Let's see, jihadists can post stuff with impunity, Kieth Olberman can likewise insult Holocost victims and survivors with his cry-wolf Nazi-baiting. Just don't question jihadists. Michelle is not the only one. It kind of lends a bit of irony to their ban of "First They Came" You might recognize it from the famous Martin Niehemohller bit.
Here is Michelle's video letter to You Tube (her emails asking for explanation have gone unanswered)
Here is Michelle's video letter to You Tube (her emails asking for explanation have gone unanswered)
Monday, October 02, 2006
He Should have been Arrested
Even when he was in college, Albert Haynesworth was a cheapshot artist. His fans would turn a blind eye to it. "That's [art of the game" was and continues to be the stock defense.Yesterday he took his "game" to the next level by stomping on the head of the Dallas Cowboys' center. "I did it and it's wrong. That's not the game of football that's not how it's supposed to be played.", said Haynesworth after the game. They why did you do it, Albert. The man was down and his helmet was off! I agree with Chris Collinsworth. The police should have come in the field and taken him off in handcuffs.
There is no place for that in football or any other sport for that matter.
Even more aggrivating to me was the fact he did it against the Cowboys, a team I have actively despised for as long as I can remember. I had to be sympathetic toward them. $%@#
There is no place for that in football or any other sport for that matter.
Even more aggrivating to me was the fact he did it against the Cowboys, a team I have actively despised for as long as I can remember. I had to be sympathetic toward them. $%@#
Sunday, October 01, 2006
I have no Use for...
... pederasts. Especially those who operate from under cover of authority. It was dispicable when Gerry Studds did it then turned his back on the House of Representatives as he was being censured. Yeah, the people of his district re-elected him repeatedly. All I can say is they get what they deserve if they voted him back in.
The same is true of anybody calling themselves "conservative" or "Republican" calling for continuing support of Mark Foley. Yes, Michael Savage, I'm talking to you. While he did start the second look at the awful Dubai ports mess, that does not give him a pass. What he has been accused of and practically admitted to, is nothing short of pederasty. I don't care if he is gay. I do care that that he was doing this under the cover of authority. Sorry, but after that any good he may have done goes straight by the boards.
At least Foley has done the honorable thing and resigned (as oppsoed to the aforementioned Studds). The usual quasi-sincere apology (sorry he got caught) accompanied. I only hope he didn't resign with the expectation that he will get light treatment. I am tired of the Jimmy Swaggart-esque tearful plea for forgiveness.
The same is true of anybody calling themselves "conservative" or "Republican" calling for continuing support of Mark Foley. Yes, Michael Savage, I'm talking to you. While he did start the second look at the awful Dubai ports mess, that does not give him a pass. What he has been accused of and practically admitted to, is nothing short of pederasty. I don't care if he is gay. I do care that that he was doing this under the cover of authority. Sorry, but after that any good he may have done goes straight by the boards.
At least Foley has done the honorable thing and resigned (as oppsoed to the aforementioned Studds). The usual quasi-sincere apology (sorry he got caught) accompanied. I only hope he didn't resign with the expectation that he will get light treatment. I am tired of the Jimmy Swaggart-esque tearful plea for forgiveness.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
I just couldn't Let this Pass
Okay mabe I could. I've never subscribed to the "prosperity gospel" or been a fan of the preachers who propogate it. It has always just rumbled me. Okay let's just cut to the chase. I thought I would pass this along from one of the cheesiest of the propserity preachers. This is really powerful stuff:
That Pesky old First Ammendment
One of the problems with coming to the dance late is you often miss some good stuff like DUmmie FUnnies: "Should religion be outlawed?". I came across this from a link on DUmmie FUnnies on a related topic. The point that the fine people at DU seem to miss is that the First Ammendment protects more than their right to dissent even to the point of exposing themselves as fools. The ammendment opens with, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting [emphasis added] the free exercise thereof".
Of course the reality-based community proceeds as if those words never existed to describe their utopis with all the silliness found in John Lennon's "Imagine". My favorite bit is this proposal:
Congrats! You have managed to both establish a religion (Unitarianism) and prohibit the free exercise. Of course that is to be expected from a group that produces this little tid bit:
"It should not be outlawed but should be eliminated from politics as the Constitution mandates."
Wrong again. The Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from administering a religious test. It does NOT prohibit the electorate from applying the tennats of their religious beliefs in deciding for whom to vote. Then again, this is only their wish list and as long as the Democrat Party insists on gravitating toward the Ned Lamonts and Howard Deans that is all it shall remain. They are the tail that wags the dog. And this dog is the mutt that never leaves the pound.
Of course the reality-based community proceeds as if those words never existed to describe their utopis with all the silliness found in John Lennon's "Imagine". My favorite bit is this proposal:
1. no minor should be allowed to possess a religious text, participate in a religious ritual or enter a church
2. no adult should be allowed to possess a religious text without taking a course in comparative world religion at the first year university level, and all such courses should be taught by Unitarians or Atheists.
Congrats! You have managed to both establish a religion (Unitarianism) and prohibit the free exercise. Of course that is to be expected from a group that produces this little tid bit:
"It should not be outlawed but should be eliminated from politics as the Constitution mandates."
Wrong again. The Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from administering a religious test. It does NOT prohibit the electorate from applying the tennats of their religious beliefs in deciding for whom to vote. Then again, this is only their wish list and as long as the Democrat Party insists on gravitating toward the Ned Lamonts and Howard Deans that is all it shall remain. They are the tail that wags the dog. And this dog is the mutt that never leaves the pound.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Missed my own Blogoversary!
Ain't that like me all over. On the eve of my second blogoversary I went up to Greer, SC for the funeral of a friend. On the way I made a stop and the fuel pump decided to die. Having replaced fuel pumps in cars before I figured a couple hundred bucks max. Boy was I wrong! $525 to replace the water pump (the pump itself was $300). My blogoversary is also my wife's birthday. By the time I got home not much was left of either so we did what we could for the birthday.
I mean I love you readers of mine (both of you), but I'm the marriage thing for the long haul.
I mean I love you readers of mine (both of you), but I'm the marriage thing for the long haul.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Even a Broken Clock...
I am no fan of Charlie Rangel or Nancy Pelosi. By the same token I have to applaud their comments to Hugo Chavez after his insulting remarks regarding President Bush. While it is the right of every US citizen to be critical of members of the country's government, it is nothing short of diplomatic thuggery to go on foreign soil and insult the leader the country you are visiting. Bismark started the Franco-Prussian war over less.
Like Michelle Malkin, I would feel better about Rangel and Pelosi's defense of the president were it not for Rangel's "Bull Connor" analogy and some of Pelosi's own personal attacks. That said I was very critical of Bill Clinton during his administration. I even made more than a few personal comments about his character (or lack thereof), the same is true of Jimmy Carter. When either of them did anything I agreed with I complimented them on it. (The fact that such instances were rare not withstanding). That is my right as a US citizen. That right does not extend to visiting heads of state.
Likewise, (on a somewhat tangential note) nor does any church have a right to engage in blatantly partisan attacks like the church in Harlem that invited Chavez and others to continue the bash fest. Now the left is always wanting to pull a given church's tax-exempt status for handing out information on candidates positions and voting records on various issues. What happened on Thursday with Chavez and Samuel L. Jackson goes well beyond dissemination and that church should be looked at as well.
Like Michelle Malkin, I would feel better about Rangel and Pelosi's defense of the president were it not for Rangel's "Bull Connor" analogy and some of Pelosi's own personal attacks. That said I was very critical of Bill Clinton during his administration. I even made more than a few personal comments about his character (or lack thereof), the same is true of Jimmy Carter. When either of them did anything I agreed with I complimented them on it. (The fact that such instances were rare not withstanding). That is my right as a US citizen. That right does not extend to visiting heads of state.
Likewise, (on a somewhat tangential note) nor does any church have a right to engage in blatantly partisan attacks like the church in Harlem that invited Chavez and others to continue the bash fest. Now the left is always wanting to pull a given church's tax-exempt status for handing out information on candidates positions and voting records on various issues. What happened on Thursday with Chavez and Samuel L. Jackson goes well beyond dissemination and that church should be looked at as well.
Monday, September 18, 2006
I got Tagged...finally
After almost 2 years of blogging (my blogoversary is Wednesday), ALa over atblonde sagacity has hit me with a book meme:
Book that changed my life: Bible
Plain Account of Christian PerfectionJohn Wesley
Book I've read more than once:
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
Book I'd take to a desert island:
the Harry Potter series
Book that made me laugh:
Bimbos of the Death Sun by Sharyn McCrumb
Book that made me cry:
Green Mansions not because of anything in it, I couldn't stay awake while reading and was graded on content.
Book I wish I had written:
DaVinci Code ($$$)
Book that never should have been written:
I don't like saying that a given book should not have been written, but I can think of a few that I find a shame that trees had to die for them to be published.
Currently Reading:
Dark Shadows: The Salem Branch by Lara Parker (yes, the one who played Angelique)
Planning to read:
Christ the Lord Anne Rice
The Sleeping Beauty Trilogy Anne Rice
Of the Imitation of Christ Thomas A' Kempis
I'm still contemplating who else to tag with this
Book that changed my life: Bible
Plain Account of Christian PerfectionJohn Wesley
Book I've read more than once:
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
Book I'd take to a desert island:
the Harry Potter series
Book that made me laugh:
Bimbos of the Death Sun by Sharyn McCrumb
Book that made me cry:
Green Mansions not because of anything in it, I couldn't stay awake while reading and was graded on content.
Book I wish I had written:
DaVinci Code ($$$)
Book that never should have been written:
I don't like saying that a given book should not have been written, but I can think of a few that I find a shame that trees had to die for them to be published.
Currently Reading:
Dark Shadows: The Salem Branch by Lara Parker (yes, the one who played Angelique)
Planning to read:
Christ the Lord Anne Rice
The Sleeping Beauty Trilogy Anne Rice
Of the Imitation of Christ Thomas A' Kempis
I'm still contemplating who else to tag with this
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The Rescue of Elizabeth Shoaf: or Amber Alerts only work if You issue Them
On September 6, Elizabeth Shoaf disappeared while walking home. She was rescued on September 16 after text messaging her mother while her kidnapper left the bunker where he was holding her. No surprise that her was a registered sex offender. There were the usual quotes from local law enforcement like:
Over 100 volunteers helped in the search over the last week and a half. This is where one would normaly have the obligatory praise of the Amber Alert System. Unfortunately I cannot do that here. You see, the Amber Alert commissioner refused to issue the Amber Alert! His response was:
"If you pull it too often,I'm afraid that it appears you're crying wolf too often, and people will ignore it."
It was apparent from his attitude that he regarded this as a case of a runaway. Either that or he privately thinks it should only be used in the case of pretty blonde damsels in distress. But this was not the case of a runaway. She was allegedly abducted by a registered sex offender posing as a law enforcement officer. At least they caught the guy.
Thanks Amber Alert Commission for a job well done...NOT!!!
“It’s an answer to a prayer,” he [Sheriff Steve McCaskill] said. “We have been working so hard and so diligently hoping for this outcome.
Over 100 volunteers helped in the search over the last week and a half. This is where one would normaly have the obligatory praise of the Amber Alert System. Unfortunately I cannot do that here. You see, the Amber Alert commissioner refused to issue the Amber Alert! His response was:
"If you pull it too often,I'm afraid that it appears you're crying wolf too often, and people will ignore it."
It was apparent from his attitude that he regarded this as a case of a runaway. Either that or he privately thinks it should only be used in the case of pretty blonde damsels in distress. But this was not the case of a runaway. She was allegedly abducted by a registered sex offender posing as a law enforcement officer. At least they caught the guy.
Thanks Amber Alert Commission for a job well done...NOT!!!
Saturday, September 09, 2006
C-A-R-O-L-I-N-A....GO-O-O-O--O COCKS!!!
It's the Gamecocks home opener tonight against 12th ranked Georgia. The video is from 2001, and the jerseys are black now, but it's a great opening. About all that is left of Joe Morrison's legacy.
UPDATE:Looks like our record of futility with UGA will continue. After intercepting with :50 in the 1st half we get tackled for a safety to make the score 12-0.
UPDATE:Looks like our record of futility with UGA will continue. After intercepting with :50 in the 1st half we get tackled for a safety to make the score 12-0.
Friday, September 08, 2006
I'm still Scratching my Head
The Kennedy school at Harvard has found an interesting way to comemorate the fifth anniversary of of the attacks of 9/11. They are having one of the most virulent Jew-haters, second only to his successor to give an address on the subject, "ethics of tolerance in the age of violence". I am talking about former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. In his latest installment of The Usual Suspects, Michael Graham takes a whack at Harvard. Since Free Times changes the column as Michael submits new ones, I am going to reproduce it in its entirety:
Remembering 9/11 the Harvard Way
by Michael Graham
On the evening of Sept. 10 ‹ on the cusp of the fifth anniversary of the worst terror attack in American history ‹ many Americans are going to be angry, but for very different reasons.
Americans who don't get it ‹ liberal activists and unreconstructed Clintonistas ‹ will be upset over the Sept. 10 premiere of ABC's miniseries The Path to 9/11. This six-hour docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission report allegedly suggests that the guy who'd been president for the eight years leading up to Sept. 11 might be slightly more culpable for the massive intelligence failure than the guy who'd been in office a mere eight months.
No wonder Democrats are outraged.
The film points out that President Clinton refused to give the order to kill Osama bin Laden when we had him in our sights in 1998. It shows the impact of the disastrous and legally unnecessary "wall" between the FBI and CIA dreamed up by Jamie Gorelick that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to slip into the United States unmolested.
But everyone made mistakes before 9/11. Clinton, Bush, Sandy Berger, George Tenant ‹ as a nation, we just didn't get the danger we faced from Islamist terror. Don't get mad about people who didn't get it five years ago. Instead, get mad at the Americans among us who still don't get it today. You'll find them at Harvard University.
On the same evening ABC unveils its docudrama, the folks at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government usher in the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a speech by an anti-Semitic, Islamist terror sponsor.
Harvard's special guest Sept. 10 is none other than former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. He's been invited to speak on the topic "ethics of tolerance in the age of violence." It's an interesting choice for a man who was the president of Iran at a time when it was rounding up pro-democracy college students and throwing them in jail (I suppose that's the "tolerance" part) to be tortured and sometimes killed (that would be the "violence" portion of the program).
Every year President Khatami served in office, Iran was listed by the State Department, and acknowledged by the United Nations, as the world's leading terror sponsor. It remains so today.
Khatami's Iran poured money into Hezbollah ‹ a group founded under Khatami's watchful eye in the 1980s while he served as minister of culture and Islamic propagation. Iran still supports Hezbollah.
President Khatami's Iran was secretly developing nuclear weapons and lying to the United Nations about it the entire time. Why is Iran so desperate for nuclear weapons? Perhaps it's because President Khatami called for the total destruction of Israel ‹ a position both he and the nation of Iran still hold today.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which organized Khatami's trip, considers him a "moderate," reminding us yet again that, in CAIR's opinion, a "moderate" Muslim is one who only wants to kill Jews.
Does Harvard share that opinion? Who knows? What we do know is that Harvard now has an official open-door policy to anti-Semites.
Can you imagine a family member of a 9/11 victim sitting in that audience listening to this terrorist talk about þ well, anything? Can you imagine a family who lost an American soldier in Iraq to a roadside bomb funded by the Iranians sitting through this Islamo-fascist's sermon on terror and tolerance?
The prospect is too terrible and intolerable to consider. So why is it happening? Why isn't the Angry Left angry about this, about a real member of a real fascist regime that really does terrorize its neighbors and endanger the world?
Oh, that's right. They're too busy defending Bill Clinton from the insults of an "unfair ABC docudrama" to focus on a real terrorist.
It's like the 1990s all over again.
Remembering 9/11 the Harvard Way
by Michael Graham
On the evening of Sept. 10 ‹ on the cusp of the fifth anniversary of the worst terror attack in American history ‹ many Americans are going to be angry, but for very different reasons.
Americans who don't get it ‹ liberal activists and unreconstructed Clintonistas ‹ will be upset over the Sept. 10 premiere of ABC's miniseries The Path to 9/11. This six-hour docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission report allegedly suggests that the guy who'd been president for the eight years leading up to Sept. 11 might be slightly more culpable for the massive intelligence failure than the guy who'd been in office a mere eight months.
No wonder Democrats are outraged.
The film points out that President Clinton refused to give the order to kill Osama bin Laden when we had him in our sights in 1998. It shows the impact of the disastrous and legally unnecessary "wall" between the FBI and CIA dreamed up by Jamie Gorelick that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to slip into the United States unmolested.
But everyone made mistakes before 9/11. Clinton, Bush, Sandy Berger, George Tenant ‹ as a nation, we just didn't get the danger we faced from Islamist terror. Don't get mad about people who didn't get it five years ago. Instead, get mad at the Americans among us who still don't get it today. You'll find them at Harvard University.
On the same evening ABC unveils its docudrama, the folks at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government usher in the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a speech by an anti-Semitic, Islamist terror sponsor.
Harvard's special guest Sept. 10 is none other than former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. He's been invited to speak on the topic "ethics of tolerance in the age of violence." It's an interesting choice for a man who was the president of Iran at a time when it was rounding up pro-democracy college students and throwing them in jail (I suppose that's the "tolerance" part) to be tortured and sometimes killed (that would be the "violence" portion of the program).
Every year President Khatami served in office, Iran was listed by the State Department, and acknowledged by the United Nations, as the world's leading terror sponsor. It remains so today.
Khatami's Iran poured money into Hezbollah ‹ a group founded under Khatami's watchful eye in the 1980s while he served as minister of culture and Islamic propagation. Iran still supports Hezbollah.
President Khatami's Iran was secretly developing nuclear weapons and lying to the United Nations about it the entire time. Why is Iran so desperate for nuclear weapons? Perhaps it's because President Khatami called for the total destruction of Israel ‹ a position both he and the nation of Iran still hold today.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which organized Khatami's trip, considers him a "moderate," reminding us yet again that, in CAIR's opinion, a "moderate" Muslim is one who only wants to kill Jews.
Does Harvard share that opinion? Who knows? What we do know is that Harvard now has an official open-door policy to anti-Semites.
Can you imagine a family member of a 9/11 victim sitting in that audience listening to this terrorist talk about þ well, anything? Can you imagine a family who lost an American soldier in Iraq to a roadside bomb funded by the Iranians sitting through this Islamo-fascist's sermon on terror and tolerance?
The prospect is too terrible and intolerable to consider. So why is it happening? Why isn't the Angry Left angry about this, about a real member of a real fascist regime that really does terrorize its neighbors and endanger the world?
Oh, that's right. They're too busy defending Bill Clinton from the insults of an "unfair ABC docudrama" to focus on a real terrorist.
It's like the 1990s all over again.
Says it Better than I can
Do yourself a favor and mosey over to J. D. Pendry: On Your Hands. There is nothing I can add to this to make it better.
No Matter how you Slice it...
Captain Ed is calling a spade a spade. Dems in congress sent a letter to ABC protesting the upcoming 9/11 miniseries. The letter contains what some are considering (and I tend to agree with them) a thinly veiled threat to ABC regarding their license.
Of course the Dem apologists are pointing to the reaction to CBS' planning to air Barbara Streisand's hamartography of Ronald Reagan. CBS thought better of it and changed the venue to a cable outlet. However, AT NO TIME did anybody in the GOP with any governmental policy authority threaten to pull CBS' license.
What was ABC's offense? The program points out the Clinton admin's failure to bring in, dead or alive, Osama Bin Ladin. That they had the opportunity on more than one occasion is well known. What they seem to be objecting to is that now the Clinton legacy is in the hands of historians and not faring well. Without the coercive power of government they have no way of controlling its portrayal for posterity. Sorry, Bill. Your record is what it is. Maybe if you had not sent Sandy Berger (one of the Clinton people screaming loudest) on that little search and destroy mission to the National Archives people would not view you with such suspicion. Between that and the recent actions of your buddies in congress we now have cause for alarm at what might happen should the Democrats regain the majority of either house this year.
Also check out: Stephen Spruiell
Hot Air
Michelle Malkin
Of course the Dem apologists are pointing to the reaction to CBS' planning to air Barbara Streisand's hamartography of Ronald Reagan. CBS thought better of it and changed the venue to a cable outlet. However, AT NO TIME did anybody in the GOP with any governmental policy authority threaten to pull CBS' license.
What was ABC's offense? The program points out the Clinton admin's failure to bring in, dead or alive, Osama Bin Ladin. That they had the opportunity on more than one occasion is well known. What they seem to be objecting to is that now the Clinton legacy is in the hands of historians and not faring well. Without the coercive power of government they have no way of controlling its portrayal for posterity. Sorry, Bill. Your record is what it is. Maybe if you had not sent Sandy Berger (one of the Clinton people screaming loudest) on that little search and destroy mission to the National Archives people would not view you with such suspicion. Between that and the recent actions of your buddies in congress we now have cause for alarm at what might happen should the Democrats regain the majority of either house this year.
Also check out: Stephen Spruiell
Hot Air
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
It's ______ Time!
Michelle Malkin: Brew your own beer continues her coverage of Miller Brewing's support, and continued denial of illegal alien demonstrations. Now I cannot really call for a boycot of Miller, or Anhauser-Busch since I do not like their products. In my opinion their brewing process involves good beer, a trough, a goat and a bucket. I'll leave it to the reader to work out the process.
Now there are very few domestic beers I like, but the embedded Monty Python sketch has line that represents my opinion of Miller (and a number of other domestic beers):
sits back with a McEwans to watch
Now there are very few domestic beers I like, but the embedded Monty Python sketch has line that represents my opinion of Miller (and a number of other domestic beers):
sits back with a McEwans to watch
Friday, July 14, 2006
Just Bring it!
About the only reason I ever watched the WWE were the antics of one Dewayne Johnson AKA The Rock. One of my favorites was his default challenge to any opponent, "The Rock says, 'just bring it' " This brings me to the lawsuit filed by Valerie Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson (not to be confused with SC's Second District Congressman of the same name).
In an excellant piece inCaptain's Quarters, Capt. Ed looks at the filing itself and the suit. Even before I read the Captain's assesment I already had sugar plums dancing in my head at the thought of getting Joe Wilson under oath. What I would love to see is Cheeney, Rove and Libby adopt a Br'er Rabbit "please don't throw me in that briar patch" posture at this point. But if they do not, then I will settle for, "Just bring it!"
Because when they do, the defense is going to take that law suit, polish it up nice and shiney and shove it straight up their candy a**es!
IF YA SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKIN'
In an excellant piece inCaptain's Quarters, Capt. Ed looks at the filing itself and the suit. Even before I read the Captain's assesment I already had sugar plums dancing in my head at the thought of getting Joe Wilson under oath. What I would love to see is Cheeney, Rove and Libby adopt a Br'er Rabbit "please don't throw me in that briar patch" posture at this point. But if they do not, then I will settle for, "Just bring it!"
Because when they do, the defense is going to take that law suit, polish it up nice and shiney and shove it straight up their candy a**es!
IF YA SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKIN'
Monday, July 10, 2006
And Now for Something... Well, you get the Picture
I first read about the Row between Jeff Goldstein and Debbie FrischMichelle Malkin. Much has been written about this row so I probably don't need to rehash it for you. What I will do however, is give you my take on it, figuratively speaking lest I be accused on advocating violence against Dr. Frisch.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)