Saturday, September 29, 2007

Sweet Spirits of Ammonia Roundup!

Bob G from Sweet Spirits of Ammonia has been missing from this blog for far too long! Here's a "roundup" of his recent posts, which are all worth a read. I love his common-sense attitude! The synopses are mine, and contain commentary on his posts, as well.

Out Of The Shadows

The story of Pedro Zapata, an illegal immigrant from Guatemela, who was caught bringing $59,000 out of the country, without declaring it to customs. Couldn't he have wired it?

Make Sure LOST Loses

An important, and severely under-reported story about the "Law of the Sea Treaty," and it's effect on the US. Why are both the Congressional Dems and the Bush administration giving positive political signals on this 30-plus year old monstrosity? See the link in Bob's post for the details.

Hofstra's Ethics Horrors Conference

Lynne Stuart, a former lawyer convicted of helping pass messages from her terrorist client, who was in prison, to his terrorist associates outside of prison, is a speaker at a conference titled "Lawyering at the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, Zealous Advocates." She should be the highlight of the conference.

Bollinger's Bravado, and The Devil Went Down To New York City

These two posts are aspects of Ahmedinejad's visit to our fair city. Bob rightly rips Bollinger, and properly characterizes A'jad as the devil. GREAT STUFF!

Syria Replaces Iraq In Axis Of Evil

I've blogged about this subject before, but Bob's got a compelling story about Israeli commandos killing No. Koreans, and siezing nuclear material in Syria, before the airstrike. This looks like real action against the Axis.


Friday, September 28, 2007

Newt's New Contract With America: Lots of Liberal and Conservative Platitudes, and Some Good Ideas

After reading Newt Gingrich's latest "Winning the Future" email, I got the impression that he's been out of politics too long. Don't get me wrong; I like Mr. Gingrich. I'd gladly vote for him, if he were the Republican nominee. Of course, he hasn't even entered the race yet, amid much speculation. He's been testing the waters through his website, and the email newsletter. Online version at Human Events, linked here.

This week, he mentions the 13th anniversary of the "Contract With America." He also sets out what appears to be a "trial version" of a new "Contract." Here are his 10 points:

1. Levees shouldn't break, and the Corps of Engineers should be changed until it is reliable.

2. Bridges shouldn't fall, and our federal and state highway programs should be changed until we have reliable inspection and repair.

3. Students should learn, and the bureaucrats and bureaucracies that dominate failing educational systems should be changed every day until the students are learning.

4. The border should be protected for national security reasons, and it should be protected now.

5. English should be the official language of government, and first-generation Americans should be offered intensive English education.

6.Congress should control spending and spend within its budget, so we can get back to the balanced budgets we had when I left the speakership.

7. The death tax should be abolished permanently.

8. The capital gains tax should be abolished to increase the money in our retirement accounts and to help create jobs in America.

9. An energy strategy should be implemented to meet national security, environmental and economic goals and to eliminate the danger of foreign dictators who are manipulating us through our energy needs.

10. Americans should not be bogged down in long, indecisive campaigns: We need a strategy for defeating our enemies, defending our friends, winning the campaign in Iraq and bringing our troops home.

My first thought was "a little heavy on the platitudes, Newt," and it is. However, there are several unquestionably good ideas stated clearly (#'s 4,5,7, and 8). Of course, all of them sound like good, common sense things. It's just that the devil is always in the details. How, exactly, is he going to change all of these failed bureaucracies? And if he's not running, how are we going to accomplish this "change?"

He also has a list of principles for change, which had some more platitudes, such as "There should be a prize for breakthroughs in the environment and for highly fuel-efficient vehicles." A prize? Yay. Again, I did like some of his real proposals, even when couched in liberal (or conservative) rhetoric. Here are a few excerpts:

Social Security today is not facing up to the reality of people living longer, and it should be reformed to ensure it is stable and reliable and taken away from the politicians so the younger generation can rely on it. People should have the option to have a personal account in Social Security that they can invest to get a bigger retirement income. Any money left over in their personal Social Security account should belong to them, and they should be able to leave it to their family -- something they cannot do today.

The United States could reduce the carbon going into the atmosphere by 2,200,000,000 tons a year and be 15% better than the Kyoto standard if we simply produced the same percentage of electricity from nuclear power as France does today. There should be a strong effort to develop safe, reliable, 21st-Century models of nuclear plants which could be built quickly and reliably.

American history should be reemphasized in both K-12 and in college, and being able to pass a basic test in American history should be a part of both high school and all publicly funded college graduation requirements.

The McCain-Feingold Censorship Act is unconstitutional and is a big part of why we now have destructive two-year long campaigns, and it should be repealed and replaced with a simple system of reporting all contributions every night on the Internet so everyone can see where every candidate's support comes from.

I am behind these positions fully, and see his reasoning on several others that I didn't excerpt here. Whether Newt runs for president or not, I thank him for articulating a few issues that need to be included in the debate about who will be leading this nation after George W. Bush. Plus, I'm sure Mr. Gingrich has a strategy on effecting the changes he proposes. He's not going to reveal them now, which sounds like a political decision. Place your bets, people.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

ACLU Privacy Hypocrisy

Recently, the ACLU set their doomsday clock at six minutes before midnight! Once it reaches the ‘dark hour’ of midnight…we will be slaves to the ominous and evil ’surveillance society’. This isn’t science fiction. This is a typical scare tactic from the ACLU.

They prey upon the paranoid. This is how they get donations to fund their machine. They cry about American citizens being spied upon" when in fact there is no evidence that anyone has been hurt by the government's terrorist surviellance program.

While the ACLU cry that they are the guardian's of liberty, and that privacy is one of those liberties....they have been exposed as being
violators of that very liberty. They have a massive database of their own member's private financial information they use for soliciting donations.

The group's new data collection practices were implemented without the board's approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU's privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group's Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group's Web site was changed. "They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy," Meyers said. "In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret."

Now the ACLU are proudly defending Rep. Larry Craig on grounds of privacy. In another recent case they are defending a "pre-operative transsexual" anatomically male's "right" to use the female public restroom. Terrence Jeffrey calls out the 'privacy hypocrisy' on this one.

"The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime," said the ACLU. "It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or a restroom."

But then the ACLU went a step further, arguing that there is not only a right to solicit sex, but also to engage in it, in a public restroom.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court," said the ACLU, "has already ruled that two men engaged in sexual activity in a department store restroom with the stall door closed had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They were, the Court held, therefore acting in a private, not a public place."

The conflated logic of the ACLU's bathroom briefs seems to be that someone entering a public restroom intending to use it for traditional purposes has no protection either from the gender sign posted at the door or from the otherwise vaunted right to privacy. Someone entering a public restroom intending to solicit and engage in sex, on the other hand, is protected by both the First Amendment and the right to privacy.

What else would you expect from a group that embraces an ideology that holds that
partially born babies have no right to keep their skulls intact?

Indeed. As my good friend Glib Fortuna puts it:

This about sums up the ACLU’s worldview. To the ACLU, the only “freedom” the ACLU truly believes in is "sexual freedom" and the concomitant "right" of people who choose aberrant sexual behavior to be free of any criticism and free from anyone else exercising common sense (and more threateningly, religious liberty) if it "infringes" on these "rights" recently invented by the ACLU and its partisans.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at Over 200 blogs already onboard.

Thursday, September 20, 2007


I have a question: Does John F. Kerry think that the tasering of the FSU student was "torture?" After all, he mentioned electrocution as a method of US torture of N. Vietnamese, in his famous "winter soldier" speech to Congress. Isn't his word, as a soldier and statesman, of what constitutes "torture" still valid, even if the electrocution was not on the genitals at FSU? Didn't Kerry hear the screams of the victim, as he droned on in the lecture hall?

I'm sure that more than a few people were tortured by having to listen to Kerry, but that's a separate point.

ACLU and CAIR Sue the FBI Over Surveillance: STOP THE ACLU BLOGBURST

I apologize. I have been negligent in my duties as a card-carrying member of STOP THE ACLU. Thanks to Jay, for this week's BLOGBURST!

BIG hat tip to LGF

CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirators with Hamas, have joined with their favorite group, the ACLU, to sue the FBI to release records of their surveillance of Muslims….regardless and not even caring of what consequences this could bring about.

The ACLU and Muslim advocacy groups sued the FBI and the Justice Department
on Tuesday, alleging that authorities failed to turn over records detailing
suspected surveillance of the Muslim-American community.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, alleges that the
FBI has turned over only four pages of documents to community leaders, despite a
Freedom of Information Act request filed more than a year ago.

The request sought records that described FBI guidelines and policies for
surveillance and investigation of Muslim religious organizations, as well as
specific information about FBI inquiries targeting 11 groups or

The lawsuit states that all the plaintiffs—who include some of the most
prominent Muslim leaders in California—have reason to believe they have been
investigated by the FBI since January 2001.

“It sends a message that Muslim-Americans have been, and continue to be,
cooperating with law enforcement, but they’re concerned there might be a
disproportionate focus … on their religious practices,” said Ranjana Natarajan,
an ACLU attorney.

One plaintiff, Shakeel Syed, said that his organization and others have
spent three years building a relationship with the FBI but that the agency’s
resistance to the request was troubling. “I think it is in the best interests of
the government to come clean and be transparent and forthright,” said Syed,
executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. “This is
a credibility issue.” …

The FBI responded to the request first by saying it couldn’t identify any
records that met the criteria requested. After an appeal, the agency turned over
four pages that dealt with the Council of American- Islamic Relations and Hussam
Ayloush, the council’s executive director for Southern California.

Those documents dealt with a suspected hate crime at a mosque that the
council had reported to the FBI and a conversation Ayloush had with an FBI agent
about cooperating with federal law enforcers, Natarajan said.

Not mentioned is that these “prominent Muslim leaders in California” are affiliated with CAIR, and that CAIR is an unidicted co-conspirator with Hamas. I hope they are being watched by the FBI! I sure hope America wakes up BEFORE its too late.

The ACLU spin:

Kary Moss, director of the Detroit branch of the ACLU, said its review
concluded the plan is a “reasonable accommodation” to resolve “safety and
cleanliness issues” that arose when Muslims used public sinks for foot cleaning
before prayers, which often spilled water on bathroom floors.

“We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it
easier for Muslims to pray,” said Moss, who likened the plan to paying for added
police during religious events with huge turnouts. “There’s no intent to promote

Blah, blah, blah…I am with Southchild…

We don’t CAIR how the ACLU tries to spin this. We recognize Dhimmitude when we see it. Thanks to Samantha Burns, Right Voices and Cao for the linkfest.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Chris Wallace KO's Ron Paul, Wins N.H. Republican Presidential Debate!

Isolationists like Ron Paul seem to appeal to a large part of the GOP base in New Hampshire, if you watched the Fox News Republican debate in New Hampshire. Though he had many "applause" lines, he was knocked out by a follow-up question from Chris Wallace, after his response that we should "get out of the Middle East," citing our troops in Saudi Arabia as a motivation for 9/11. Wallace asked:

" Are you saying...we should take our marching orders from Al Queda?"

This line drew more cheers than Paul's supporters had mustered all night. Paul went on to accuse a small band of "neocons" of hijacking the party and the presidency, getting alot of cheers. This probably played well with liberal voters, including many NH Republicans.

Nationally, Paul played himself further into irrelevance, as he has at each debate. I still respect him for his convictions, and having the guts to speak them. I agree with a few of his ideas, but not nearly enough to support him, even against someone like Hillary, which is sad.

I think Chris Wallace "won" the debate, with the most memorable question. Ron Paul lost, and the others were pretty much treading water. Brownback made a blunder by advocating "splitting" Iraq into three countries, and got called on the international, and regional consequences it would cause.

Still, I only caught parts of the debate, watching while at work. This was a pretty good debate, with some real interplay between the candidates. It also shows why the Dems are afraid to face the Fox News moderators. They were much more challenging for the candidates than some of the other debates I've seen.