Tuesday, January 31, 2006

HOW WOULD KERRY GET OSAMA? INVADE PAKISTAN?



Sen. John Kerry, and other Democrats are trying to use Osama Bin Laden to claim that Pres. Bush is soft on national security. I can't say how many times I have heard Kerry say "Tora Bora," and how we "outsourced" that battle. They go on to say that Osama's capture should be the war on terror's focus, not Iraq.


I am curious to know what they would suggest. Bin Laden is supposedly hiding in Pakistan, and that government will not let us invade their country to look for him. There is a reason why Waziristan is an "autonomous" reigon of Pakistan. The government has never been able to exercise authority there. This is why the "rule of law" in this reigon is created by local tribal councils. Any attempt at a large scale invasion of Waziristan by the Pakistan government might cause a civil war in that nuclear nation. Allowing US troops to invade might have the same result. One only has to look at the reaction to the recent missile attack in that reigon, which got 4 terrorists (though missing Al Zawahri, the intended target), to see the truth of this.


So remember, when you hear Kerry, or Hillary, or any of the other wanna-be Dem Presidential candidates say "Osama should be our number one target," that he is. None of them have a plan to capture Bin Laden, unless they propose invading a nation with nuclear weapons.


In other news, everyone favorite elitist called for a fillibuster of Judge Alito from Davos, Switzerland. This takes the cake. John F. Kerry needs to release his full military records, and explain why he won't collaborate with the terrorists, as he did with the North Vietnamese over 30 years ago.

Join the blogbursts to help FREE Kerry’s 180 every Tuesday at CAO'S blog!

Sunday, January 29, 2006

OKAY, SOME REAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION RANTS!

Yes, I know that my Leavrant on illegal immigration was more an analysis of the debate, with a few mild opinions thrown in. For some real red meat rants on this, read this by Doug Giles, and this from Frosty Wooldridge (hat tip to Kender from STOP The ACLU). I fall on their side of the debate, though my rhetoric fell short of expressing it. I was trying to write in an analytical way, that might sound more reasonable to people who are either "on the fence" (no pun intended), or ignorant of the problem. Hopefully, those who read that piece will go on to read the above pieces, and see the light.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Hypocritical Legacy of the ACLU

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform.

A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy.

The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty.

Many of the ACLU's former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.

But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release: "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." ...

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

None of the anti-abortion group's intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one's side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one

....Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century's great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past.

That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants.

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

I would argue that the Constitution doesn't protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn't the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU's curious commitment to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU's absolutist views and of the ACLU's campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self--a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.” “But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

It seems that the many of the ACLU's greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn't doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeapordy the very liberty they claim to protect.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

TWU NEEDS A REALITY CHECK: JAIL TIME FOR STRIKING, IMMEDIATELY!

Continued from UNIONS SCREW NY, ALREADY HAVE MORE BENEFITS THAN AVERAGE NY SUBWAY RIDER!

With their leadership facing jail time for the pre-Christmas strike, the TWU rank-and-file REJECTED the contract that the leaders agreed to, by just 7 votes out of over 20,000 (Nobody sued for a recount). This is beyond the pale. I still don't have the words to say my thoughts, because the story is still developing.

The NY POST had a stunning report about a subway booth clerk who made $70,000 last year, on top of all those "free" (to him) medical benefits. Not only did he vote against the contract, but was featured on the front page, sleeping in his booth, during the mid-afternoon! Now, they're going to strike again, rather than go to binding arbitration?

Where is Rudy when you need him?

Mayor Bloomberg is a manager, not a leader. The same goes for Gov. Pa-tax-i, who hasn't said "boo" about the consequences of the damage the TWU caused to the greatest economic engine in the world on one of it's busiest weeks of the year. Pete Kalikow, the head of the MTA, is a man I have read few good things about, after reading about him over many years.

The deeper problem lies within the bureaucracy. The MTA is a creature of NY state, NJ, NYC, and to a lesser degree, the counties surrounding NYC. The "authority" they run under is nominally public, but who they are answerable to depends on who you ask. Right now, no leader is representing the riders and taxpayers, a job that would normally fall to the Mayor and Governor. A leader would be out front saying that the TWU leadership will go to jail the day they resume the strike, and follow up on it in court now. I'd like to put all the picketers in jail too, if the law allows it.

I don't know if many people know this, but back in the founding days of this nation, New York was said to have one of the most complexly corrupt bureaucracies in the world. Times may change, but corrupt bureacracies don't. Today, it's the rare politician who can reform any one of the myriad bureaucracies, and most of those reforms don't work, and have to be repeated every 20 years or so. This is the pattern with the MTA strikes (1966, 1980, 2005), and even Rudy's creation of a whole different child-care agency has devolved to the depths of its predecessor (Google Nixmary Brown). This is a failure of leadership.

I grew up in Manhattan during the dismal '70's, and walked 40 blocks to work during the 1980 strike. What the TWU is doing now is outrageous, and someone, or some combination of people (the judge in this case has shown the most backbone, and actually ended the last strike) can not only avert a repeat, but switch them to a defined contribution plan, instead of a defined benefit plan. (AS IF!) I would settle for them to pay something into their own health care, though that seems to be a sticking point for the younger workers, who see no need to pay for health care they don't use (yet). These are the people that need the reality check.

Fire them! Start with the newest workers, and start a jobs program for people willing to pay for their own benefits. A person making $35,000 a year with no health benefits would jump on an MTA job, I assure you! Who are we kidding, here? You can get better qualified people, too!

ONCE AGAIN: WHERE IS RUDY


WHEN WE NEED HIM?

--I guess I found some words, huh?

GIGOT IS BACK - ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL: WHAT, NO BROADCAST EXPOSURE?

The conservative revolution may be dead on PBS, but FOX NEWS CHANNEL has obviously listened to my pleas. Paul Gigot, and the WSJ Editorial Report have resurfaced at 11 PM on Sat. nights, with a repeat at 6AM Sun. (story)


Much like the liberal I used to be, I am not satisfied with that. FOX must make this show available to their broadcast audience, meaning those of us without cable. I say bring the Beltway Boys as well, and make it a 2 hour block with FOX NEWS SUNDAY on the FOX broadcast network every Sunday morning!


The commercials affected the time alotted to the panelists, and it seemed to show in their debut on FoxNews. I'm sure that they will get used to the new time constraints as they continue. This show has the potential to be the free-market equivalent of the 1970's MacNeil/Lehrer Report, which lives on as The News Hour with Jim Lehrer to this day on PBS.

Dan is the man. I can't even remember his last name, but his smirking face is etched in stone in my mind, as he gives the most sensible analyses available on TV, or elsewhere.

The same goes for Kim, my other favorite on the show. She may not have Dan's smirk, but she has the same good sense that I have come to expect from all of the people on this program. Bravo to you all, and here's hoping for greater viewership! You provide true public-service programming.

I get a kick out of the news reports labeling this program "conservative." I have not once heard PBS' NOW program labeled as "liberal," except in programs that investigate that subject. Speaking of which, maybe there is room for FOX NEWS' Media Watch show on the broadcast network, if they get rid of Neil and Jane...-JUST KIDDING! (I only wrote that because I know that they would disagree with me, and I didn't include their show in my Sunday "fantasy" lineup)

Even funnier is the last line of the news link: "Fox News Channel called the show interesting and well-produced, and likely to draw affluent viewers to the network." I think it may have a wider appeal, as noted in my last post about it.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DEBATE: THE LEAVRANT!

Alot of the immigration debate I've been reading about and listening to can be broken down into a few categories: " Border security", encompassing such ideas as putting the National Guard on the Mexican border, or building a wall, or hi-tech surveillance measures, to stop potential terrorists from entering through Mexico. The "amnesty or expell" debate, involving the fate of the estimated 10 million plus illegals in the USA. This one divides into several aspects to consider. The third category is the economic cost/benefit of illegal immigration, and the impact of any action taken to limit it. Finally is the crime category, with illegal immigrants comprising a majority of prisoners in many border state jails. Each of these categories relates to the others, to some degree.

Border security is the front line of this challenge. Woefully under-funded, and not supported politically, US/Mexico border security efforts have been sorely lacking in effect. Not only have half a million people made it across the border each year, but armed drug gangs with corrupt Mexican military assistance regularly operate on US soil. Combine that with the known terrorist threat of Al Queda, and regardless of the overall immigration issue, something radical has to be done at the border. I think that the Minutemen provided a great service by both protesting the border policy and showing a way towards fixing it.

Illegal immigrants are here illegally, so they're breaking the law. That's an immutable fact. They are also human beings, and deserve respect and humane treatment. That is a fact, followed by a moral judgement. The moral judgement part is open to interpretation. I may feel that it is wholly respectful for law-enforcement to arrest and detain an illegal immigrant (as long as they are addressed as sir/miss), and humanely detain him/her until they are repatriated. Others would disagree. Even Ronald Reagan believed in a form of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants who had been living productive lives here for 5 (?) years or more. Of course, I can agree with both of those points of view. (That's 'cause I used to be a liberal)

Seriously, there are several aspects of this one, starting with the fact that it would be an enormous cost, both economic and cultural, to our nation if arresting and deporting all illegal immigrants was attempted. It could be done, but it would take a "war on terror" depth of acceptance to do it, politically. I just don't see that happening. This also factors into the economic category, mentioned below. Another aspect of this debate is the growing demographic and political strength of the Latino community in the USA. I notice that Democrats seem to be excessively accepting of illegal immigrants, but haven't seen strong Republican leadership in opposition to this (though that seems to be changing). Republicans have been worried about alienating their growing Latino base, which is around 40% in some areas, as Democrats have been trying to let illegal immigrants vote, seeking to counter that trend. Illegal immigrants have some of the most powerful lobbyists in the country, which have already set the terms of the debate as being "humane" at any cost. That cost, which we are straining under currently, must be weighed against the cost of the solution.

The politicians will never get it right, but there is a way to balance these two extremes. I believe there is a way to allow some of the people who have come here illegally to earn a right to a "stay of deportation." This may sound like a fancy "window-dressing" around an amnesty, but I'm just being politically realistic. This would have to be combined with real enforcement of deportation against illegals who don't qualify for deferment. I just came up with that as an example: I only throw it out as an idea, not necessarily the best one. There are other aspects to the "amnesty or expell" debate, which tie in with the next category.

The economic impact of illegal immigration, and the cost/benefit of stopping (or drastically reducing) it is a subject of great debate. On one side,illegal immigrant proponents, business groups among them, say that illegal immigrants do work that no-one else will do, or that the US economy is dependent on them. These are fallacies, though they contain a grain of truth, if you look at a snapshot of today's US economy. There was a time when the US economy was dependent on "blue collar" workers, who didn't always make the high wages that their dwindling numbers make these days. Times change the economy, whether we like it or not. Currently, our national economy is fairly dependent on illegal immigrants, though this will change as well, for better or worse.

Opponents of illegal immigration cite the drain on social services, as well as the prohibitive cost of medical care and education, which is reaching a breaking point. It is unclear if the removal of all those illegal families from the US would save more than the cost of doing so, but the US has a problem in these areas, regardless of the illegal immigrants. There is also the tax problem. Illegal advocates say that they get money taken from their paychecks, but that can only be true if they have a fake social security number. Either way, the economic drain is real, and getting worse.

Though it doesn't only fit in with economics, I would be remiss not to mention the chronic cultural problem of illegal day-laborers. Having 60 people living in a one-family house, and loitering on corners every morning is not compatible with the suburban areas where it is occuring ever more frequently. Again, liberal politicians have tried to provide "gathering areas" where this business can take place. This is a bad idea, because it keeps a blind eye to all of the other issues raised here, especially about how and where are they living in these communities.

The final, and to some, most crucial aspect of this debate is the criminal element. Being here illegaly necessitates some criminal behavior, even by the most honest person. Fake ID is a major concern to law-enforcement, while liberal politicians would extend "documentation" to illegals. That seems well and good for decent, established persons who have been productive, law-abiding residents. Unfortunately, many illegal immigrants are filling jails around the country, while the politicians have prohibited police from even asking them about their status. These so-called "sanctuary cities" are violating federal laws, and not adequately protecting their citizens.

Further, the gangs that help bring people here often use them to expand their criminal activities. Their families back home can be threatened, or they have no other means to get by. Gangs like MS-13 and others are a national menace because of our lax immigration policy. Drug gangs have bought Mexican protection, and our border is becoming a war zone. I'm starting to think that they have bought some U.S. protection, judging by the reaction to this latest incident. Something has to be done about this situation.

This is a rough outline of the debates I have been hearing on this very complex issue. I'm sure I've overlooked someone's "pet aspect," and feel free to comment. It's definitely a much bigger issue than critical media response or political action on it would suggest. I hope that is changing.

PS: It's interesting to note that this was 2/3 done before the above-mentioned border incident, which actually inspired me to finish it. Hat-tip to Jay from STOP THE ACLU.

Crossposted at LOVE AMERICA FIRST

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

KERRY ON "THIS WEEK": NO "FRIENDLY FIRE"



This week's blogburst is about another reason that Kerry won't ever release all his military records: his MSM support. Case in point: ABC's This Week show, which was soley a forum for Kerry to go on the attack. I have yet to see him interviewed by someone who will ask him the tough questions about his past

It's more than just that. Read the entire interview, and you'll see that the whole thing is structured as an attack on the Bush administration. Stephanopoulos had to challenge him on a couple of assinine remarks (see below), but mostly led him through his talking points flawlessly.

Missing from the interview was any mention of Kerry's proposals for Social Security, health care (though Kerry mentioned it while attacking Bush, Stphie didn't follow up on it), education, or Vermont's Judge Cashman, who gave a pedophile 60 days. He did say about Judge Alito, "I will vote against him because I think he will take the court backwards."

QUESTION FROM LEAV: If Judge Cashman is at the progressive front of the direction the court is moving, should it not be taken backwards? -but I digress.

Notice how little the Democrats blog had to alter the ABC News online report of the show. Here are the funny quotes you won't read in either of those:

-responding to the following comments by VP Cheney: The president said in his speech to Congress right after 9/11 that we had to do everything in our power to make certain we used all the tools available to us - intelligence, military, law enforcement.

The fact of the matter is, we have not been attacked in more than four years. That is not an accident, it’s not just dumb luck.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... Vice President Cheney is right, isn’t he, and how much credit should President Bush get?

KERRY: No, he’s not. He’s right that we haven’t been attacked. He is not right, and I’m glad he reminded Americans, about having said we will do everything in our power and use all the forces at our disposal.

...the man remains the master of the flip-flop. Here's the other doozy, responding to this quote from Karl Rove: President Bush believes if Al Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they’re calling and why.

Some important Democrats clearly disagree.


STEPHANOPOULOS: He must have had you in mind. You’ve called the program a clear violation of the law.

KERRY: We don’t disagree with him at all. It is a violation of law and we don’t disagree with him at all, and this is exactly what Karl Rove does. Let me tell you something.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But how can you think it’s a violation and not disagree?

KERRY: You know, Osama bin Laden is going to die of kidney failure before he’s killed by Karl Rove and his crowd. And all he does is divide America over this issue and exploit it. And what he’s trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don’t want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That’s a lie. We’re prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer.

Ooh, a flip and twist, with a zinger of a joke in the middle, followed by a resounding flop of a landing, as he claims "divisiveness" before playing the "me, too" card on national security. Congratulations to ABC and Mr, S. as well, for airing this blowhard, as you wonder where your ratings are going. People can imagine O'reilly interviewing Kerry, and you just don't compare favorably.

PS: The wrong George took the reins of this show, though it sounds crazy even to me: This Week with George Will. He, at least, would be equally tough on pols from both parties. Until that time, John Kerry and his ilk will get a free ride on this show, and many other MSM outlets. On the brighter side, FOX NEWS has brought the WSJ Editorial Report back, an outlet that I doubt John Kerry will ever appear on.

Join the blogbursts to help FREE Kerry’s 180 every Tuesday at CAO'S blog!

Friday, January 20, 2006

NORTH KOREA UPDATE: PETER BROOKES

Peter Brookes' latest on North Korea (from Town Hall):

North Korea has become a gangster nation, pocketing $700 million to $1 billion a year from counterfeiting of U.S. greenbacks, trafficking illicit narcotics, smuggling contraband smokes and even peddling knockoff Viagra, according to U.S. government estimates.

"North Korea is the only government in the world today that can be identified as being actively involved in directing crime as a central part of its national economic strategy and foreign policy," says David Asher, until recently a State Department adviser on Asia.

Pyongyang's global criminal cabal - including Chinese gangs, Russian mafia, Japanese yakuza and an IRA politico - produces a tidy little slush fund for "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il, which shamefully equals the country's legitimate export income.

--read the rest.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

TAKING A STAND AGAINST ACLU "SAFE AND FREE" HYPOCRISY



Well, the fine folks at STOP THE ACLU sure have been busy this week. First, they ridicule an ACLU banner which (unbelievably) reads "Keep America Safe and Free," and offer up a more appropriate one.

The next two related posts are about the ACLU lawsuit against the National Security Agency (
here), and how weak it is (here). They also have a chilling piece about one of the plaintiffs joining the ACLU and CAIR in the case.


All of this leads up to
this weeks BLOGBURST, in which STOP THE ACLU is signing on with lawyer Debbie Schlussel as the first intervening party (whose interests and welfare are affected) in the case , supporting the government's activities. This is great news indeed.

This was a production of
Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Crossposted at LOVE AMERICA FIRST

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

KERRY'S VERSION OF VIETNAM



This week, we'll be examining some excerpts from Jean Francois Kerry's own website bio! Let's start here:

As he was graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam, because, as he later said, "it was the right thing to do." He believed that "to whom much is given, much is required." And he felt he had an obligation to give something back to his country. John Kerry served two tours of duty. On his second tour, he volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat in the river deltas, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war. His leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts

Hmmm. No mention of a deferment request there. Larry Elder mentions it here, though. He also quotes former presidential contender Bob Dole:

I respect [Kerry's] record, but three Purple Hearts – he never bled that I know of. They were all superficial wounds. As far as I know, he never spent one day in the hospital, I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability.


And he's boasting about three Purple Hearts, when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam ... Maybe he should apologize to all the other two-and-a-half million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one who was in Vietnam. I think Sen. Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused.

...and then there's this: JOHN KERRY'S SILVER STAR, by Craig Roberts - NewsWithViews.com.

Let's get back to Kerry's version of events...

But John Kerry's wartime experience taught him a painful lesson that he could not forget, even after he returned home. In the midst of battle, he had seen the lives of his fellow soldiers, his friends, put at risk because some leaders in Washington were making bad decisions. He decided he had a responsibility to his friends still serving, the friends he had lost, and his country, to help restore responsible leadership in America.

This is where it gets interesting. He followed a political path, using the anger of (mostly-drafted) anti-war vets, and the suffering of POW families as his platform. Was he taking advantage of the political climate, or was he being used by the North Vietnamese? WorldNetDaily has this story with the interesting title MISSION: IMPLAUSIBLE Hanoi urged U.S. activists to run for office
Kerry mirrored documented plan to 'plant progressive people'

Kerry's website goes on...

So he decided to become active as a Vietnam Veteran Against the War (VVAW). He became a spokesman for VVAW and later co-founded Vietnam Veterans of America. Only 27 years old, John Kerry sounded this call to reason in April 1971 when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and posed the powerful question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

This part takes the cake. Read this from Winter Soldier.com, this and this from WND.

He'll never release all of his military records, because to do so would be political suicide. They will out, eventually, and history will show the depths to which this man sunk over his military and political careers.

Hat tip to JOHN KERRY SHOULD STEP DOWN, OUT OF POLITICS, of course.
Join the blogbursts to help FREE Kerry’s 180 every Tuesday at CAO'S blog!

Friday, January 13, 2006

ACLU "Helping Hamas"

BobG from Sweet Spirits of Ammonia posted a truly damning piece about the ACLU "Helping Hamas" in yesterday's STOP THE ACLU blogburst. This is unbelievable!

Great work, Bob!

Thursday, January 12, 2006

ACLU QUESTIONING STATE MONEY TO REBUILD CHICAGO CHURCH SCHOOL


OKAY, for the hundredth time: financial aid to religious community groups or organizations is not establishment of a State Church!

This is an obvious attempt by the ACLU to further expand the idea of "separation of church and state" to an even more unrealistic level than it is already stretched. The proof is in the story, from the Chicago Tribune. (whole story)

Setting off a new round in the debate over the separation of church and state, civil libertarians are questioning a plan by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to spend $1 million in state funds to help rebuild part of Pilgrim Baptist Church's campus. (after a fire-LEAV)

The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday sent the governor a letter asking for more details about the plan, saying Blagojevich's proposal "raises obvious religious liberty issues."

But Blagojevich argues that the $1 million is going to rebuild the church's school and administration offices--not the sanctuary itself--so it passes legal muster.

"First of all, we do this all the time," Blagojevich said during a news conference Tuesday in East Peoria. "When there are needs to help people, we invest into religious institutions through churches" and their social service or educational programs.

The governor also said that Pilgrim Baptist was a historical landmark in the African-American community, serving as a haven for blacks during migrations from the South."

In addition, in the 1950s, and especially in the 1960s, this unique historic church was a place of tremendous activity and an anchor in the civil rights movement," Blagojevich said.
Hat tip: topix.net

...and so it goes. Groups that were supported by the ACLU 40 years ago are now their potential targets. Looking at the larger political picture, it was an inevitable split in the left, between secularists and religious liberals. If the libs want the government to give money out to people, and groups of people, they have to expect that many of those people and groups will be religious. It's too large a part of this country's heritage for even the ACLU to take on. They have done tremendous damage, but the tide is turning back against them.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

The original artwork may be used with permission, but the STOP THE ACLU version may be used by any blogburst member, as long as you credit me, and link here in your post. This goes for any of my art that has been altered with the words STOP THE ACLU. It's my little gift to the cause, though I don't know how much it helps

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

AMY RIDENOUR'S NATIONAL CENTER BLOG: FUNNY AND THOUGHT- PROVOKING!

I have to share some recent posts from Amy's blog, for the reasons in the title of this post!

Science Magazine to Try Harder
The Commons Blog: Protecting Nessie
Equal Number of Complaints Dodge is My Media Pet Peeve Number One
Regret The Error: Miner Story Corrections
New York Times a Criminal Organization?
Death by Suicide Prevention
God, As Revealed

Keep up the great work, Ms. Ridenour!

LEAVWORLD appreciates the link as well!



JACK BAUER'S BACK ON 24: WHAT ABOUT JACK IDEMA?

With all of the anticipation of the return of the fictional character Jack Bauer from the TV show 24, I find it depressingly ironic that someone who could be his real-life counterpart, Jack Idema, is being held in Afghanistan, by the Karzai government.

WHO IS JACK IDEMA? (Cao fills you in)

Read about who Jack Idema is, and this whole distressing situation at CAO'S BLOG (post linked above), which is doing yeoman's work on publicizing Mr. Idema's case.

ACLU OPPOSES ALITO: HELP STOP THEM!

Jay from STOP THE ACLU has a great post about the ACLU opposing Judge Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The ACLU vote came after a special meeting of its 83-member national board this weekend, which has voted to oppose only two nominees in its 86-year history: Justice William Rehnquist, and Robert Bork. They are calling their members to contact Congress to oppose Alito.

Jay's post also has a way for readers to contact Congress to support Judge Alito. Go read it, and contact your elected representatives! To quote the best line from the post: "If the ACLU is against this man, you know he is the right person for the job."

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

MARK ALEXANDER: WHY KERRY WON'T SIGN HIS 180


Here's my little FREE THE KERRY 180 BLOGBURST logo! This week, we excerpt Mark Alexander, from Town Hall:

What, exactly, is Kerry hiding? It is already common knowledge that most of his celebrated heroics were spurious, and that most of his medals were without merit (see "Kerry's Quagmire" at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/ ). But given that the cat's already out of the bag, why not just sign the Standard Form 180?

Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge. The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.

As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.

Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.

Hat tip to JOHN KERRY SHOULD STEP DOWN, OUT OF POLITICS, of course.
Join the blogbursts to help FREE Kerry’s 180 every Tuesday at CAO'S blog!
Logo is open use. "Take my logo, please." -LOL!

Friday, January 06, 2006

THE "LEAV" THEME SONG LYRICS -YA DAMN RIGHT!

Have a laugh reading my homage to Isaac Hayes, and SHAFT, who was portrayed by Richard Roundtree in the original 1971 movie. Don't tell me "SHUT YOUR MOUTH!" I'M TALKIN' ABOUT LEAV!

"WRIST SLAP FOR CHILD RAPIST" JUDGE ALSO SOFT ON DUI CASE

This is from Britt Hume's Special Report - The Political Grapevine (01/05/06)

A Vermont man convicted on multiple rape counts against a young child was given just 60 days in jail by a judge who says he no longer believes in punishment. Prosecutors had asked for at least eight years behind bars for Mark Hulett, who confessed to raping his victim repeatedly for four years, starting when she was seven.

But in handing down his sentence, Judge Edward Cashman said harsh punishment, "accomplishes nothing of value," adding, "anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul." The victim's mother tearfully disagreed, telling reporters that the rapist "should pay for what he did."

--This same judge threw out a DUI case in Nov. '05, overturning a precedent that had allowed University of Vermont police to make arrests in the immediate surrounding areas. That ruling is under appeal.

Michelle Malkin, as well as all of the blogs linked to her post, express my opinion, which is outrage. I can't wait for someone to ask the people calling Judge Alito an "extremist" what they think of this judge. --well, I guess I just did! (See EXTREMIST JUDGES: WHAT WE NEED!)

Crossposted at LOVE AMERICA FIRST

ABC NEWS REPORTS ON AHMADINEJAD: "HE'S NOT LIKE THAT"

--an excerpt: ABC News' Bob Woodruff filed this report for "World News Tonight."

Some analysts fear just how Ahmadinejad might try to bring about the end of the world and what he might do with a nuclear weapon.

Sayeed Jazy has also known the president since childhood. He believes a lot of what his friend says, including his call to annihilate Israel, is just rhetoric.

Said Jazy: "You sit down and ask him, 'Do you really want to do that?' He would say no. Because I know him, he's not like that. No one in right mind would accept that."

---Yeah, right. (see previous post, and this one)

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

FASCISM, ISLAMISM, AND ANTI-SEMITISM

Excerpting a Joseph Loconte op/ed piece from the Daily Standard:

Two weeks ago the Iranian president shocked Western leaders when he claimed that the Holocaust was "a myth" created by Jews and "Zionist historians." This followed a previous slander against Israel as "a tumor" to be "wiped off the map"--or, at best, relocated to Europe. "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," Ahmadinejad told the Organization of the Islamic Conference. His anti-Semitic tirade comes as the Iranian leader continues to defy the United Nations to pursue a nuclear weapons program. "I thought, my God, he's a Nazi," a German resident told Knight Ridder. "I couldn't believe that again the world was faced with a Nazi as a head of state. It's beyond comprehension."

Tone deafness to the racist fury of radical Islam is bad enough. What makes matters worse is that anti-Semitism is not just a problem in the Arab world, but in Europe and in much of the international community. The U.N. World Conference Against Racism, held in 2001 in Durban, famously degenerated into a platform for Israel-bashing. Since then, reports by non-governmental groups such as Human Rights First have described "a staggering wave" of anti-Jewish violence in Europe.

Hat tip to DANEgerus

KNICKERBOCKER NEWS: Civil Liberties News Roundup

Crossposted from Knickerbocker News:

White House Calls ACLU a "Special Interest" Group-WND

White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The ACLU – this is one of the special interest groups that Democrats in the Senate are trying to appease because they want to weaken and undermine the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is vital to saving lives. … It has also met an important commitment to protect people's civil liberties."

Is the ACLU a special interest? Certainly. I couldn't find any Democrat rebuttals defending the ACLU on this one. They show their support with their votes in Congress.

Chaplain on Hunger Strike Against Navy Policy-WND

Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt says he will not eat until the president takes action to allow him and other chaplains the freedom to pray and preach without diluting God to a one-size-fits all deity.

It's been two weeks since he participated in a protest outside the White House, asking President Bush to sign an executive order allowing military clergy to pray according to their own faith traditions.

"They taught mandatory lectures there to all chaplains, that you cannot pray to your God, you have to pray to the civic god," Klingenschmitt explained. "The Muslim chaplain can't pray to Allah, a Jewish chaplain can't pray to Adonai, a Roman Catholic can't pray in the name of the Trinity, and I couldn't pray in Jesus' name in public.

"They only let us do that in private. If it's in public, they tell us to just pray to God and say, 'Amen.'"

WH spokesman Scott McClellan referred questions to the Defense Department.

ACLU Sues Over Student's Right Not to Stand for Pledge - Fla. Sun-Sentinel

A Boynton Beach, FL. teenager has engaged the ACLU to sue his school, after being "ridiculed and punished" for not standing to the pledge of allegiance.

"This lawsuit is not about the Pledge of Allegiance," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. "It is about his right to choose not to stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance."

It seems more like a lack of discipline in the schools, and students going to any lengths to avoid doing what they're told. The same applies to this next one...

Rep. Tom Tancredo Asks ACLU to Support Student's Right Not to Stand for Mexican National Anthem

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R), citing the ACLU's stated opposition to the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, asked the ACLU to defend a student who refused to stand for the Mexican national anthem at a cultural awareness program. The Mexican anthem contains the lines, "For in heaven your eternal destiny, has been written by the hand of God."

Rep. Tancredo's press release is linked in this item's title, suggesting that he wasn't expecting any help for his constituent from the ACLU. Again, I think both the kids should have stood, if the faculty told them to.

ACLU Giving Cameras to Film Police - STL Today

The local ACLU chapter is giving video cameras out to residents of the city's north side, attempting to document civil rights abuses.

Sgt. Kevin Ahlbrand, president of the St. Louis Police Officers Association,said: "We don't expect any negative reports to come out of videotaping. Our members are under the assumption that in today's society, they should assume that any time they're in public, they may be being videotaped."

Perhaps the ACLU could ask the local people to film the criminals, instead of the cops? --Stipulating that there are many more criminals than criminal cops to film, of course. The ACLU doesn't appear to subscribe to that belief.

Hat tip to STOP THE ACLU

FREE THE KERRY 180 BLOGBURST - NAVY CONTRADICTS KERRY

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer, is excerpted this week, from 09/04:

Navy Contradicts Kerry on Release of Military Records(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Navy released documents Wednesday contradicting claims by Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry that all of his available military records have been released.

The Navy, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, also referred interested parties to Kerry's campaign web site for government military documents. Navy Personnel Command FOIA Officer Dave German wrote in an e-mail to Judicial Watch that the Navy "withheld thirty-one pages of documents from the responsive military personnel service records as we were not provided a release authorization."

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the Navy's correspondence confirms that Kerry has not been forthright in releasing his military files."It's written confirmation from the U.S. Navy that there are additional documents from Kerry's service record that have yet to be made publicly available," Fitton told CNSNews.com.

--I hope this guy runs for President again. I can't imagine that this stuff was widely disseminated last time, even though I knew about it. I see a parallel with the Bush ANG story, and how hard the MSM tried to use it again in his re-election battle.

My personal theory, after all I've read, is that Kerry got the Carter administration to consider any offenses he committed as "political," rather than criminal. It may not have been a partisan thing, either. If he was already a Congressman, then he had huge "back door" juice with the military. It's an open secret that they kiss Congress' asses personally, which was why Bush got TAD to Alabama. The difference is that Bush's whole history is documented, and all that could be found was that he missed a physical. If Kerry used his political influence to cover up potentially traitorous (even if unwittingly so) conduct, that is something that needs to be exposed.

Hat tip to JOHN KERRY SHOULD STEP DOWN, OUT OF POLITICS, of course.

Join the blogbursts to help FREE Kerry’s 180 every Tuesday at CAO'S blog!

Monday, January 02, 2006

ACLU SLAMS DOJ INVESTIGATION OF NSA LEAKER, WANTS INVESTIGATION TO BE CALLED OFF!

FROM STOP THE ACLU

Posted by Jay on 12-30-05 @ 3:05 pm Filed under ACLU, War On Terror, News

ACLU Website

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Media@aclu.org

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today sharply criticized a Justice Department investigation into the disclosure of an illegal National Security Agency domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush.
In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as two full-page advertisements in the New York Times, the ACLU has called for the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether President Bush violated federal wiretapping laws by authorizing illegal surveillance of domestic targets.

The following statement can be attributed to ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero:

“President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistleblowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law.”

“To avoid further charges of cronyism, Attorney General Gonzales should call off the investigation. Better yet, Mr. Gonzales ought to fulfill his own oath of office and appoint a special counsel to determine whether federal laws were violated.”

Unbelievable! This shows just how concerned the ACLU is with National Security, absolutely none. Why would the ACLU not want an investigation of sources leaking classified information? What other reason, than hatred of America could it be? What we need is an investigation of the ACLU.

THANKS, JAY! Read tons of trakbacks at the post linked in the title! RELATED LEAVWORLD POST: HOW DARE THEY! -SACRIFICING BUSH ON THE ALTAR OF "CIVIL LIBERTIES" DURING WARTIME

Sunday, January 01, 2006