“There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions. about what the Bible says, we couldn’t agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,” said 13-year trooper Rex Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia.
Republican lawmakers in the state concurred, arguing that the new restrictions are a violation of the First Amendment and an attack on Christianity.
“For those of us who understand the importance of religion in American life and value the free expression of religion as one of our essential rights, the Kaine administration’s directive is disappointing and disheartening,” House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said.
“Censoring what these chaplains can say is a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of expression,” Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., said.
The former state trooper is currently putting together an online petition to get the police department to rescind the new rule.
When federal judges in San Francisco ruled in 2002 that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional because it included the phrase “under God,” Sarah Palin was not amused. Palin, who at the time was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, quickly drafted a terse letter to the editor of a San Francisco newspaper.
“Dear Editor,” Palin wrote in 2002. “San Francisco judges forbidding our Pledge of Allegiance? They will take the phrase ‘under God’ away from me when my cold, dead lips can no longer utter those words,” Palin wrote.
“…the old fighter jock may be frightened that he’s about to ditch another plane” - Joe Klein, Time-blog.
On Oct. 26, 1967, John McCain was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk dive bomber was shot down and he was forced to bail out. Badly injured, he was subsequently captured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. He was held in horrific conditions from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of torture and refusing an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer; his war wounds would leave him with lifelong physical limitations.
Or, perhaps you’d prefer this alternative version, as characterized by TTS earlier this year:
McCain was bombing women in a lightbulb factory (according to Newsweek) when shot down in North Vietnam. He has never failed to defend any illegal or violent war in which the US leaders involved the citizens.
Of course, despicable political commentary has been around for a long time, but, with this latest piece of hateful garbage, Mr. Klein has managed to bring it down to an historical new low. Here are some excerpts from his new post in his appropriately named Swampland:
From Time-blog.com
September 25, 2008 10:32 What Actually Happened Yesterday
Posted by Joe Klein
John McCain faced another crisis yesterday–a political one, not the financial emergency he used as an excuse for his rash actions–and once again he overreacted. This is becoming a pattern (as is his “greatest crisis since…” formulation: yesterday, since World War II; previously–on Georgia–since the end of the cold war), and it is not very reassuring behavior in a potential President…
The political crisis was real. And it wasn’t merely that he was slipping a bit in the polls…
Happily, in the end, McCain did the responsible thing…but he did it foolishly, in a panicky fashion. What McCain didn’t understand was that the legislative crisis was already receding when he made his melodramatic–and somewhat wild-eyed–suspension of campaign activities statement…
In any case, the crisis was receding because the Bush Administration was caving to the Democrats’ modifications In any case, Obama’s cool steadfastness has put him in the driver’s seat on this one…
And that raises an interesting question: Why was McCain so quick to pull out of the debate? After all, with the momentum slightly in Obama’s direction, he needed a game-changer–and foreign policy is, allegedly, his area of expertise. His peremptory actions yesterday was not the behavior of a confident man. It was the behavior of a man uncertain, despite all the macho bluster, about his chances in the most important theater of battle in any presidential campaign, one where gimmicks, diversions and untruths can be directly countered by his opponent. McCain may clean Obama’s clock in the coming debates–but it seems entirely possible that the old fighter jock may be frightened that he’s about to ditch another plane.
Through the eyes of our lovely Mr. Klein and friends, John McCain’s bail out over Vietnam was most likely some kind of a slick political maneuver, and his later courageous refusal to accept early release based on his father’s propaganda importance was just another political ploy. What, I wonder, must it be like to be a Mr. Klein? What must it be like to look at this world of ours through those cynical jaded eyes?
By choosing the interests of his country over the interests of his political campaign, John McCain has once again demonstrated that bravery and loyalty for which he has justly become famous.
And once again, our infamously biased leftist media has demonstrated its unconscionable amorality.
I know, I should be used to it by now. We all should. It was, after all, to be expected and should come as no great surprise. And yet it does surprise me. This utter contempt for truth and fairness from one of our most prestigious publications can still shock me, still make me recoil in disbelief and disgust, can still make me almost physically sick.
I know, we’re not supposed to hate; it’s a negative drain on our psyche. But I’m sorry, I just can help it. I truly despise all of the liars and cheats of this world, and all of those ideologues who put their personal political interests over the welfare of their country and the honor of truth. I despise our Mr. Klein and all the Mr. Kleins of this world. And I firmly believe that sooner or later truth will prevail, it always does, and these despicable cheats and liars will go down in flames just like our honorable candidate’s doomed A-4E Skyhawk. - rg
Title: Mission Accomplished: One Year Testimonies at the MRS
START DATE: Wednesday September 24
TIME: 12:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Location Details:
MRS (Marine Recruiting Station)
64 Shattuck Square
Berkeley
(On Shattuck Ave just south of University where Shattuck runs one-way and north - also 2 blocks north of downtown Berkeley BART)
Event Type: Protest
Contact Name zanne joi
Email Address mzsam [at] bayareacodepink.org
Phone Number 510-524-2776
Address
CodePINK and our allies have prevailed!
Major protest operations at the MRS have been ended, one year since covert military recruiting operations were first uncovered in Berkeley!
Our coalition is now engaged in dis(as)sembling and deconstructing the U.S. military, making the world safe and secure!
Our city and our coalition are proud of these accomplishments!
Come to our One Year End Recruiting Commemoration Wednesday, Sept 24th noon at the MRS* to honor these courageous Peace Activists!
Share and hear testimonies from the front lines of our most memorable, meaningful, insightful actions, episodes, and occurrences over the past year.
For more information and to participate, just BE THERE or call 510-524-2776.
*The MRS is located at 64 Shattuck Square, Berkeley, on Shattuck Ave just south of University where Shattuck runs one-way and north - or two blocks north of the downtown BART.
The USMC Recruiting Center is still open. Code Pink is packing up and leaving. This means they prevailed?! In what warped reality do these crazy people live in??
I think my favorite line is the one about “covert military operations”. Yes, look at how hidden and secretive it is:
A storefront right on a busy street. Covered in USMC logos and banners. Those damn secretive bastards. Trying to hide things! And again, in what warped reality do they live in that disassembling the United States military makes the world safer? If it weren’t for the United States military, all of Europe would be speaking German right now. We’ve saved the world numerous times from various faces of evil, from fascism to communism and now Islamic terrorism. And in any case, Code Pink must be especially deluded to think that they have even one iota of impact upon our military.
And as for Code Pink’s “victory”? The recruiting center is still open. I called them myself. And they laughed and said, “We don’t pay much attention to them. We aren’t going anywhere.” I then told them that the rest of the country supports them, and they told me thank you and reassured me again that they weren’t leaving. Which means Code Pink lost. Their mission was to get the recruiting center closed, and they didn’t. So how was their mission accomplished?
It wasn’t. The Marines have faced much tougher foes than the measly Code Pink wackjobs, and they’re still standing while the unpatriotic loons are leaving with their tails between their legs, desperately trying to make it seem like they didn’t waste a year in Berkeley.
Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain announced Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign beginning today as he returns to Washington so that he can do the job that he was elected to do. This suspension of his campaign is said to include postponement of his debate with Democrat Nominee Barry Obama if needed. Obama said that he didn’t see a need to postpone the debate and that the next President should be able to multi-task. But what is the real reason why Obama is so anxious to see this debate go off but refused to meet McCain out among the people in town-hall forums around the country? Well I believe that I know the answer to that question.
Barry has been holed-up in Clearwater, FL for days preparing for a moderated debate where he has to be able to give answers without the aid of a teleprompter. He’s been practicing for this debate and any delay might cause the effectiveness of this practice to be diminished.
Here’s the evidence (WARNING VIDEO CONTAINS QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE)…
Barry can ill-afford to be caught like a deer in headlights like he was at Saddleback. As someone who is as staunchly pro-death as he is, he shouldn’t have come across as such a indecisive twit like he did. One of the major attractions for those who confuse articulate rhetoric with the ability to lead has been Obama’s command of the English language. Which if you watched the video was sorely lacking at Saddleback. Why? No teleprompter.
So Barry has been in Florida in an eleventh-hour cram session like a college student preparing for an exam in a subject that he’s weak on. He cannot afford a delay which is precisely why a delay may be necessary in my opinion.
On a related note…
It took an invitation from the White House for Barry to tear himself away from his debate preparation and attend a bipartisan meeting with McCain and President Bush. How sad is that?
Isn’t it ironic that SanFran Nan and the rest of her fellow Democrats including their Nominee for President, Barry O, are blaming the Bush Administration for the down turn in the economy sparked by poor lending practices in the housing market? Isn’t it strangely ironic that in recent days we have found out that the problems stemmed from practices put into place to placate the Senate Banking Committee in 2005? And Isn’t it just a bit more than a coincidence that the current Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd (D CT) and the Democrat Nominee for President of the United States one Barack Hussein Obama, received the highest amounts in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It’s true according to several sources. Most especially Open Secrets.
Dodd received $165,400 from Fannie and Freddie’s PACs and Employees.
Obama received $126,349 from Fannie and Freddie’s PACs and Employees.
On top of these revelations we have also discovered that the Democrat Nominee in 2004, a certain John F. Kerry, received $111,000. That is as of September 8, 2008.
To be completely fair, it seems not many in the House and Senate from either Party are not guilty of taking Freddie and Fannie money. To his credit, Sen. John McCain took contributions from individuals but not Freddie and Fannie’s PACs.
The most interesting fact of these numbers is the fact that Barry O took the second highest amount of money from Fannie, Freddie, and their employees in the shortest amount of time. He has only completed 3 years and just under 9 months of his first term as a United States Senator and did not serve in the House before this term. So in just under 4 years in the Senate, most of which time he has spend campaigning for President, he has taken $31,500 per year in office. That is more than a lot of people make in personal income in a single year.
Bottom line is that those responsible for the current mess are running Congress. Now Congress is willing to take some action on oversight. That is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house after a majority of the hens have been eaten. This could have been fixed in 2005.
Besides FoxNews… Where is the news media? Absent as usual when it comes time to report on Democrat failure.
As most veteran customers know, it takes a pretty thick skin to successfully navigate the Berkeley Bowl, this strident city’s most popular grocery store. Outside, petitioners seeking signatures for ballot measures have come to blows with opinionated residents. In the tiny parking lot, nicknamed the Berkeley Brawl, frustrated motorists have been known to ram one another’s cars. At the checkout, people have thrown punches and unripened avocados at suspected line-cutters.
When one shopper was told she couldn’t return a bag of granola, she showily dumped its contents on the floor. Culyon Garrison, who works at the customer-service desk, recently had a loaf of bread thrown at him.
The produce emporium — one of the nation’s most renowned retailers of exotic fruits and vegetables — creates its own bad behavior. Kamikaze shoppers crash down crowded aisles without eye contact or apology for fender-benders. So many customers weren’t waiting to pay before digging in that management imposed the ultimate deterrent: Those caught sampling without buying will be banned for life — no reprieves, no excuses. (Not even “I forgot to take my medication.”)
Raphael Breines, who was ejected last year for eating on the premises, said he couldn’t decide between two types of apricots, so he sampled both. Security stopped him in the parking lot. “They treated me like a thief,” said the 37-year-old park planner, who was photographed and required to sign a no-trespass agreement. “Technically I was stealing, but I wasn’t trying to hide anything. I was just deciding which type of apricot to buy.” Breines, a longtime customer, sent an apology letter, asking to be reinstated. His request was denied.
Store manager Larry Evans says the policy is a fair response to doctors, lawyers and college professors who help themselves to bags of cookies, nuts and vitamins, stick their fingers in pies and guzzle from bottles of sake, assuming the rules don’t apply to them. “There’s a sense of entitlement to this town,” Evans said. “People think, ‘If I want to do it, I’ll do it, just try and stop me.’ ”
Seven years on the job, he said, has given him insight into the city’s sometimes sharp social elbows. “Berkeley residents are angry — they’re mad at the president, the economy, all kinds of stuff. And this is the place where it seems to get released, the local supermarket.”
Longtime Berkeley residents also think they have a grip on the good life, so being banned from the Bowl is no small matter. On a typical summer day, a shopper at the Bowl is likely to find 20 kinds of apples, eight types of mangoes, half a dozen varieties of papaya, six kinds of garlic, five types of ginger and 40 different tomatoes.
At least since September 8 the extreme left has been pushing a lie that Governor, then Mayor, Sarah Palin “charged rape victims for rape kits” performed upon them in the Alaskan town of Wasilla. The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy. Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.
As mentioned first up was The Frontiersman story from 2000. In that story Police Chief Fannon was quoted as standing against legislation that would force local municipalities to pick up the costs of rape kits being performed. In the interview Fannon said that, upon conviction, he favored the criminals being charged for the costs.
The story mentions that Fannon claimed that at the time Wasilla did have a policy that rape victims’ insurance would be charged for the kits being performed but there was no mention that victims themselves were charged and no claim that any ever were. It should be pointed out that The Frontiersman is the local Wasilla paper, so, consequently, the story did not mention what the policy was in any other Alaskan city outside the area the paper covers other than to say that “most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams.” This last phrase has been focused on by Palin’s detractors and spun from “some municipalities” into “all” (except Wasilla) and presented as some sort of proof that she hates rape victims.
After Palin was picked to be VP, on September 8, a blog called Americablog found the old story and brought it up as evidence of “a rather nasty window into Sarah Palin.” Americablog is run by a man named John Aravosis, a Democratic strategist, sometimes gay activist, and Washington D.C. lawyer who once worked for Alaska Senator Ted Stevens before he, Aravosis, formally switched to the Democratic Party.
Later that day The Daily Kos also picked it up and from here it began to morph even further adding false claims to the story. In one of those additions to the story, Kos blogger Steven R claimed that Palin hired Police Chief Fannon because he was in favor of charging rape victims for rape kits. Steven R said he was “Pro-Charging Rape Victims for their OWN TESTS!!!” (bold in original). I cannot find this claim anywhere prior to the meme being picked up by the Old Media echoing this Kos diarist.
According to the Uniform Crime Reports for Wasilla, up until 2000 only one rape had been reported to police in Wasilla. The Kos diarist tried to claim that one rape reported equaled one rape conviction alleging that all the “other” rapes were not convicted. But the report clearly says that it was one rape reported not one rape convicted. The Daily Kos Diarist was trying to make it seem as if there were all sorts of rapes going on that weren’t being reported and, presumably, all sorts of victims being charged for rape kits.
In any case, from here the Old Media began to pick up the charge that Palin had put in place or at least agreed with this charging of victims policy. On September 12, for instance, The L.A. Times repeated the charge.
When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.
The L.A. Times also helped further the warped claim that made it seem that the only Alaskan town that charged victims for rape kits was Palin’s Wasilla.
Then-Gov. Tony Knowles said Thursday that Wasilla was unique in the state in charging rape victims for costs incurred by law enforcement in trying to solve the crime.
This charge then began to appear in all sorts of opinion columns, blogs and in the comments sections of many of the Palin stories in papers all across the country.
On September 21, the Chicago Tribune repeated the tale, as well. The Chi Trib tried to spin this tale into one that made Palin notorious in the Alaska State Legislature over the practice.
While she was mayor of Wasilla, her town was the only one in Alaska that required rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests. Charging victims for the “rape kits” necessary to collect evidence and convict sexual predators was a “cost-cutting” measure that continued until complaints about her administration’s policy prompted the Alaska State Legislature to pass a bill that banned this anti-victim practice statewide.
On September 22, it was CNN’s turn to highlight the charge. CNN also pushed the false idea that out of all of Alaska’s towns only Wasilla insisted on perpetrating this policy quoting former Democratic State Rep. Eric Croft to that effect.
Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.
Farther down in the story, CNN does reveal that there are no records and no proof that Palin ever even knew about this charging the victim policy. CNN also finally mentions that Wasilla wasn’t the only town in Alaska that had this policy.
Many other papers also mention that Palin charged victims for their own rape kits. Papers such as Denver Daily and Philadelphia Weekly, for instance. There are far more than the few I mention here.
So, the impression all these stories leave us with is that the town of Wasilla was a major impediment to passage of a bill in the state legislature that would end the policy of charging rape victims for their own rape kits being administered. We are told that “Palin charged rape victims” and we are told that she hired a new police chief because he also wanted to charge victims. One would think that if all this were true, Palin would have been all over Alaska’s news in the year 2000 because of it. But, in reality, none of these charges can be found and Jim Geraghty of NRO has done a little investigative work to prove it.
Geraghty looked to see how often Wasilla and Palin were mentioned in the debates about the rape kit bill. But he finds that there is not one mention of the town of Wasilla in the hearings over the bill. Far from being the mayor that had “complaints about her administration’s policy” (as the Chi Trib says) being the one forcing the state legislature to pass the law, Wasilla is not mentioned at all in the debates about the bill.
The Democratic sponsor of the legislation, Eric Croft, told USA Today recently that “the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.” Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged.
Geraghty also could not find a single instance of a rape victim ever having been charged for her own rape kit.
To clarify: In preparation to attend a hearing and support the bill, one of the state’s top law-enforcement officials found no case of a rape victim ever being charged. And roughly a month after 30 Democratic lawyers, investigators, and opposition researchers, not to mention reporters from every major news agency in the country, landed in Alaska, we still have no instances to consider.
Additionally, Geraghty found that it was the hospitals in Alaska, not the police agencies, that were passing the bills on to the victims’ insurance companies. And the idea that only Wasilla had such a policy is blasted out of the water by Geraghty who notes that Juneau also had the same policy of charging rape victims for their rape kits.
In fact, at a Finance Committee hearing, Representative Gail Phillips (R., Homer) “read for the record, a statement from a woman in Juneau who had experienced the charges as indicated.” Compare Juneau (population 30,711 in 2000) to Wasilla (population 5,469).
On top of all of that, there are no stories prior to Sarah Palin being offered the billet as VP by John McCain that makes the claim that Palin was informed of or involved in this policy of charging rape victims for rape kits. And, since there was only one rape reported in the city between 1996 and 2000 when the story first came to the papers, it’s no wonder she wasn’t aware of the policy. When would it ever have come up? Does anyone think that any given mayor of any American town is fully cognizant of every single policy or law in their city, especially if it is a law not in use because of a lack of situations to bring it to light?
For her part, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella has said that the governor “does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.”
In the end, it seems that this story is a wild exaggeration about Palin’s role in this policy. There is no proof that she ever knew about the policy until long after the situation hit the news, it is untrue that her town was “unique” in blocking the measure, no evidence that she, herself, was notorious for the policy, and no proof that any victims were ever charged for rape kits. In fact, according to the Uniform Crime Report there were only 5 rapes reported in the 6 years she was mayor of Wasilla and four of those happened after the state law in question was passed.
In fact, this whole thing looks like another case where the media has been programmed by the nutroots and Democratic operatives.
Yet, the media still repeatedly bring this false charge up at every possible opportunity. Geraghty is right. The Old Media and the Obama campaign owes Palin an apology.
I was approached with the unique opportunity to interview Presidential contender, Mr. Tom Tancredo. I had more questions, but due to the hectic schedule of campaigning for Mr. Tancredo we had to shorten it down to a few questions. However, it is an honor to have this privilege and I have been given more opportunities for possible interviews in the future. Below, are my questions and Mr. Tancredo’s answers. I am not ready to endorse and candidate at this point, but I will say that Mr. Tancredo is one of my favorites. I appreciate Mr. Tancredo for taking the time to answer my questions and his blogger, Mike Tate, for making this opportunity possible for us.
Here’s the responses:
1. Lets start with an easy one. What do you feel is the most important issue facing America today and what do you offer in helping to face this challenge?
America knows this one by now: immigration. As President I will grant no amnesty to those who broke our laws, prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, and require legal status for anyone receiving drivers licenses, welfare, non-emergency healthcare. I will encourage assimilation of legal immigrants and eliminate taxpayer funded crutches for those who do not learn English, such as bilingual education options available in public schools and on ballots.
2. Many are of the opinion that the Democrats took over both Houses due to ignoring the important issue of border control. Do you believe this played a major part or is this issue more complicated?
In 2006, many Democrats that defeated Republicans had immigration platforms as tough as mine. Consider the many Democrats in 2006 that ran on border enforcement and no amnesty platforms. Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler defeated an incumbent Republican with such positions as: “Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers approximately $70 billion a year in financial assistance for welfare benefits, health care, education and domestic crime-fighting. I do not support granting amnesty to people who have broken the law.” J.D. Hayworth — I know you all remember him — was defeated by Democratic Harry Mitchell, who has this on his website: “Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to secure its border. In Congress, I’ll make it a top priority to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and stop illegal immigration.” The list goes on and can include Montana Senator Jon Tester and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. Democrats won because Republicans ignored the issue for too many years.
3. While immigration is a very important issue, many people think your focus in this area makes you appear as a one issue candidate. Please explain some of the other important strengths that you will bring to America as our leader.
I am a lifelong conservative that has advanced my reputation as a solid pro-life, pro-gun, small government Republican. I have consistently championed conservative principles that strengthen America.
Once again I want to thank Mr. Tancredo and his blogger Mike Tate for this opportunity. Hopefully there will be more in the near future. Make sure to visit Tancredo’s Official Campaign Blog today where Mike Tate will be live blogging the debate behind-the-scenes!
Here is the latest “Imus type” controversy! It will be interesting to see the reactions to this. Will Scarborough start backtracking? We’ll just stand back and watch the backlash! Hat tip: The Palmetto Scoop
SCARBOROUGH: Have you seen Fred Thompson’s wife?
CRAWFORD: Oh, yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: You think she thinks she works the pole?
CRAWFORD: That’s what a Hollywood career will do for you, I guess.
SCARBOROUGH: What do you mean?
CRAWFORD: You get wives like that.
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, look at that guy. God bless him, I love his voice. But I mean, you know. He ain’t Robert Redford in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”
CRAWFORD: Well I would like to see him back into politics because I think he’s a lousy actor
Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long- running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.
The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is more than an inch thick and list 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 200 years.
Not much can be said about this besides…it is about time! What was it Nancy Pelosi said about cleaning up the ‘Culture of Corruption’ again?
This is the perfect example of what Democrats mean when they mention the words “culture of corruption”. They know first-hand what it is because, as I’ve said many times before, they wrote the book on it.
Now that the indictments will be filed, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats, and especially the CBC, will react. Will they attempt to distance themselves from Jefferson? Will they force him to step down from his committee assignments? My guess is — no.
Lorie Byrd doesn’t think it will make much difference among the Democrats.
16 counts, up to 200 years in the Big House (of which he’ll serve exactly none, of course. He’s a politician and, as we all know, they’re above the law that the rest of us peons have to follow).
Trying to get back into the groove of this blogging thing, so I thought I would share some thoughts on one of the things we like to focus on around here…the Supreme Court. According to an ABC Exclusive, it looks like the White House is preparing for a possible vacancy.
The White House is developing a short list of possible Supreme Court nominees so President Bush can move swiftly if a justice retires at the end of June, when the Court breaks for its summer recess, according to sources involved in the selection process.
Bush met with top advisers last month, and they discussed possible nominees if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs.
The news is nothing to get overexcited about. There isn’t any fresh rumor being whispered in halls of D.C. that we know of. However, this is something to keep a close eye on. While both have said they don’t plan on stepping down, if any justices do, the most likely are John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In my opinion, a fresh replacement for either one of these two Justices would make for a better Supreme Court. Despite my bias against their political leanings they are both getting up in their years. With Justice John Paul Stevens just passing the 87 mark, and Ginsburg falling asleep at the bench, it is past time for both Justices to pass on the torch to others.
While the White House prepares a short list every spring just in case, there is good news to hope for in all of this. Despite many disappointments on other issues and the “Myers scare”, appointing Consitutionalist judges is something Bush has a good track record on. The addition of Roberts and Alito has helped balance out the Court, however it remains divided on many important issues.
The short list is leaning towards a politically correct approach for a balanced court with replacement possibilities being topped with women and minorities. The inside word sounds promising.
With the heated political climate — and with Bush’s approval ratings still low — advisers believe they cannot afford any missteps with the Supreme Court if a vacancy were to occur, sources said.
To that end, advisers are focusing on possible nominees who are believed to be solid judicial conservatives and would galvanize the base at a time when Bush desperately needs its support.
What should also excite fellow Conservatives is some of the names appearing on the list.
In that camp are federal appeals court Judges Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Both were filibustered by Senate Democrats after Bush nominated them as appellate judges and were eventually confirmed after Senate leaders struck a compromise on judicial nominations.
Either could have been a likely replacement for O’Connor in 2005, but leading Senate Republicans told the White House not to nominate them because they were seen as too controversial at the time. Now that both are on the federal bench, the White House has put them back on a working short list.
In summary, this is something to hope for, but not to get overexcited about. If the situation unfolds for this, only one thing is for sure. We saw it happen with the past two appointments and we will see it again. The Democrats will put up a big fight, and emboldened by their new power of majority and the threat of a real balance shift in the Court, the fight will be bigger than we’ve seen before.
If someone is bl*ck, you must not mention it. A Massachusetts jury convicted a bl*ck man of murdering a white woman but there is now a move afoot to have the verdict appealed because some jury members were “racist”. What made them racists? Apparently, during jury deliberations, one juror referred to the defendant as “an intimidating big bl*ck guy” and another referred to him as “”200-pound bl*ck guy”.
So mentioning the obvious is now racist in Massachusetts. Why am I not surprised?
Leftist activists at UC Santa Cruz blockaded the UC university regents in a lecture hall last October and the police had to use force to clear a way through the crowd. One of the leaders of the obstructive group was habitual protest leader Alette Kendrick — whom the police arrested for her obstructive behavior.
UCSC has now suspended her from the university for three years and there are all sorts of claims on the net that her “free speech” was violated thereby. In Leftist circles acting like a thug is free speech apparently.
Background here. A sample of the false “free speech” claims here
How can lefties dismiss this from their beloved Anthony Romero?
Al Qaida suspects sue Boeing, with ACLU’s help
Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called “extraordinary rendition program.”
The suit charged that Jeppesen helped the CIA transport the three plaintiffs to secret locations in Egypt and Morocco, where the company knew they would undergo torture, Middle East Newsline reported.
“American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. “Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable.”
Let’s remember, that the rendition program was first started during the Clintonian Infestation. Fact #1
Fact #2: The CIA transports suspects back to their country of origin. If that country, under its laws, uses methods which some people consider torture, that is beyond our control once they’ve been repatriated.
First the ACLU condemns us for holding these people. Then they condemn us for sending them back to their nations of origin for questioning. Will they ever make up their flippin minds?
Wait… They have none. Forget I asked.
Note:
Comments on Gribbit’s posts are closed. If you wish to comment on this item, do so at Gribbit’s Word. If you do however, you are subject to Gribbit’s Comment Restrictions outlined HERE. They are strictly enforced.
…howls of outrage from the religious right. One aggrieved alumni withdrew a $10 million donation to the college, groups like the ADF put out breathless and hysterical press releases condemning the decision as a PC attempt to destroy Christianity, the usual blather
1) I didn’t think ADF had any involvement in that controversy, so I checked to see if ADF had issued any “breathless and hysterical press releases.” I wonder if Ed can turn up any evidence of his “blather.” There are no press releases on the ADF website regarding the Wren cross. In fact, the ONLY comment I can locate from anyone at ADF is a single, decidedly non-hysterical post from David French on Phi Beta Cons. Ed, are we making anything up here?
2) The withheld gift to W&M was $12 million, not $10 million. (As if this guy has no right to give or not give to whom he wants).
Two errors, one big one small, in one sentence. How many more errors and inconsistencies would we find on “Dispatches” if all of us had as much time on our hands as “businessman” Ed does?
Last week, I posted on a column by ACLU dissident Wendy Kaminer. A day later, Ed Brayton commented on it also. I agree with Wendy, Ed agrees with Wendy, I agree with Ed’s take on this column, Ed agreed with me. All rosy except for one disconnect — Ed Brayton doesn’t agree with himself!
As “the foremost defender of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” you’d think that the ACLU would be laying waste to the fascistic regimes that have implemented and enforced the constitutional abominations known as speech codes and “non-discrimination policies” on university campuses all across the country. I don’t believe in criticizing a group when an individual case arises and that group happens to not have been involved in that singular incident. However, the university campus as whole feels it (yes, I speak of “it” as a monolith because this issue is a fixture at most public universities in the country, I’ll get to that) is exempt from the First Amendment…supposedly the ACLU’s bread and butter. No other government entity has so systematically and unapologetically violated, as a matter of published policy, the very basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment….
The ACLU allows the fascism (no, this is not hyperbole, it’s calling a spade a spade) to continue without comment because those strong-arm policies marginalize the very people, ideas and organizations the ACLU would gladly see just dry up and go away.
But where the ACLU has purposely failed, others have stepped in strong. It’s amazing that it takes “radical Right” organizations to draw the line in the sand and stand up for liberty on campus.
AND
Imagine the ultra-wealthy ACLU, with its half-billion dollar endowment and $150M annual operating budget, having done this (initiating a project like what the Alliance Defense Fund has with its Center for Academic Freedom ) ten years ago. With ADF’s CAF having won so many victories in such short order, the result of this “what if” would not be so hard to predict.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, Glib, but this one is utter nonsense. You cite FIRE as a group actively opposing such speech codes, and I applaud that; I’m a huge supporter of FIRE myself. But if you’d done just a tiny bit of research you would have found out, for example, that FIRE was founded by Harvey Silvergate and Alan Charles Kors, both staunch civil libertarians and ACLU supporters. In fact, Silvergate has been on the board of the ACLU of Massachusetts for over 30 years now…
You might have found out that the ACLU has often intervened along with FIRE in cases that they work on. For example, their suit against the University of Maryland; their intervention in a case at Occidental College; and in the Rhode Island case; in the various cases involving the Muhammed cartoons; and at Columbia University. You might have found out, also, that they’ve often issued joint open letters with FIRE in various cases. And you could have found out all of that, and much more, just from the FIRE website…
A little bit more research would have turned up even more information that might have prevented you from looking quite this ignorant. You might have found out that the ACLU has a strongly worded position against campus speech codes.
There’s more bellowing about the ACLU’s strong, strong presence in the fight for campus freedom, but this gives you an idea. Oooooooh — “strongly worded” position. I bolded the thing about the “Prophet” cartoons also because Kaminer absolutely savages Brayton’s mention of that sorry episode in the ACLU’s (Wendy says recent, I say long) history of hypocrisy.
It was pointed out when I previously posted the ACLU’s relative silence on campus speech suppression that the ACLU itself has a “policy” on campus speech codes and that ACLUers are on the board of FIRE. My answer: so what? A single 13 year-old statement and few letters here and there to universities over the years hardly excuses the ACLU from its conspicuous non-involvement in fighting the most tyrannical institutions in America. It has representation on FIRE’s board? Again: so what? Syria, Sudan and Saudi Arabia were on the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Leo brings the real reason to the surface — the conflict between the ACLU’s support for boutique radical causes and the money that flows from this has forced this organization to sacrifice any pretense of being true defender of the First Amendment. These speech codes and other various freedom and thought-killing university policies that silence any opposition to the radical multi-culti, homosexual agenda are set up specifically to favor those same groups that the ACLU has aligned with — politically and financially.
I’ll again point out the enormous size of the ACLU’s budget and endowment and its proud claim of filing 6,000 cases a year as the “foremost defender…yak, yak, bull.” This makes the ACLU’s sideline position that much more conspicuous and completely inexcusable. Again…what if, just what if, the ACLU had a Center for Academic Freedom.
Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs. But conservative students might be grateful for the ACLU’s absence. Consider its intervention in a successful federal court challenge to an unconstitutional speech code at Georgia Tech, brought by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2006 on behalf of two conservative religious students. The ACLU of Georgia filed an amicus brief proposing a substitute but still overbroad “anti-harassment” policy that included a prohibition on “injurious communications . . . directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.” In other words: Students should be punished for sharply criticizing or satirizing each other’s beliefs if their remarks are deemed “injurious.” Occasionally an ACLU affiliate does intervene in defense of politically incorrect speech and vigorous debate on campus. But the Foundation for Individual Rights In Education (FIRE) has become a much more reliable advocate for the rights of all college students, regardless of ideology or religion. (I serve on both FIRE’s advisory board and the board of the Massachusetts ACLU affiliate.)
Gee, sounds like EXACTLY what I said about the ACLU’s spectatorship on campus tyranny…even down to pointing out the groups who actually ARE doing something about it in the ACLU’s stead. I’m not saying that Kaminer got the idea from this site, but the similarities in our arguments and examples (mine from December, hers from late May) are uncanny.
So, Wendy Kaminer must be an ignoramus and must be bludgeoned with the ACLU’s sparkling campus battle resume, right? To borrow our favorite former stand-up comic’s visual Batmanish noise effect: Bzzzt.
I agree with this completely. Yes, the ACLU takes an official position against hate speech codes on campus; and yes, they have filed suits in the past against such cases and they still do intervene once in a while in such cases. But this is a serious issue that has not gotten near the attention from the ACLU that it deserves. Public university campuses are the only place in this country where government agencies can punish speech that is clearly protected by the first amendment. It is time for an all-out assault on such speech codes, as I called for months ago. And the ACLU should be leading the way; sadly, they are not.
Not only does Ed flip-flop his position, he nearly plagiarizes what I had written in expressing his newfound concern for the ACLU’s virtual silence on campus freedom issues!
Not literal plagiarism Ed, don’t freak out…let’s just drink in the similarities in these statements (admittedly, Ed is more succinct, but concentrate on the arguments):
Ed: Now, it’s certainly true that the ACLU’s non-involvement in any particular case does not necessarily indicate their position in that case. I’ve made that point myself in arguing with the STACLU crowd (Glib Note: I’m not sure if I’ve ever criticized the ACLU for not being involved in a particular case except in the comments section of a post some weeks ago, I did, prior to Kaminer’s piece, thrash its non-involvment in Harper and I did relate the details of a conversation I overheard between Mary Beth Tinker — she herself was baffled about the ACLU’s no-show — and ACLU staffers — who had NO good answers — after the Fredricks hearing at the SCOTUS in March)…Yes, the ACLU takes an official position against hate speech codes on campus; and yes, they have filed suits in the past against such cases and they still do intervene once in a while in such cases. But this is a serious issue that has not gotten near the attention from the ACLU that it deserves. Public university campuses are the only place in this country where government agencies can punish speech that is clearly protected by the first amendment.
Glib: It was pointed out when I previously posted the ACLU’s relative silence on campus speech suppression that the ACLU itself has a “policy” on campus speech codes and that ACLUers are on the board of FIRE. My answer: so what? A single 13 year-old statement and few letters here and there to universities over the years hardly excuses the ACLU from its conspicuous non-involvement in fighting the most tyrannical institutions in America. It has representation on FIRE’s board? Again: so what?
AND
…you’d think that the ACLU would be laying waste to the fascistic regimes that have implemented and enforced the constitutional abominations known as speech codes and “non-discrimination policies” on university campuses all across the country. I don’t believe in criticizing a group when an individual case arises and that group happens to not have been involved in that singular incident. However, the university campus as whole feels it…is exempt from the First Amendment…supposedly the ACLU’s bread and butter.
Ed, nearly identical statements aren’t true or false depending on the purveyor of the information.
So Ed, I’m wondering…was it shortly after you produced your post attacking me for saying exactly what Wendy Kaminer said last week that you reconsidered and decided to agree with me…or was it only acceptable to agree with an identical argument because Wendy Kaminer made it and you depend on your readers to just not notice the inconsistency?
OK, while we’re at it and having fun, we’ll hit Edpinata once more. Remember he used the Muhammed cartoon controversy and the ACLU’s vigorous defense of those wishing to print the cartoons?
Again, I agree completely. The ACLU should have been out front denouncing any and all attempts to censor or intimidate the publishing of those cartoons, whether on college campuses in the US or in our allies abroad.
But Ed…I thought the ACLU was leading the charge. It was one of your shining examples of ACLU campus leadership. So, the ACLU wasn’t “out front denouncing?” Hmm.
For someone who prides himself on consistency, Ed Brayton sure has shown his rear on this one. I don’t really even want to imagine a no-clothes, drawers-down Emperor Ed…so I’ll just go with Yertle the Turtle.
Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain announced Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign beginning today as he returns to Washington so that he can do the job that he was elected to do. This suspension of his campaign is said to include postponement of his debate with Democrat Nominee Barry Obama if needed. Obama said that he didn’t see a need to postpone the debate and that the next President should be able to multi-task. But what is the real reason why Obama is so anxious to see this debate go off but refused to meet McCain out among the people in town-hall forums around the country? Well I believe that I know the answer to that question.
At least since September 8 the extreme left has been pushing a lie that Governor, then Mayor, Sarah Palin “charged rape victims for rape kits” performed upon them in the Alaskan town of Wasilla. The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy. Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.
