Publius Rendezvous is MOVING!
Weekend Open Trackbacks & [Your] Caption of the Week
Also, if you have any posts or stories you feel warrant a larger audience, please feel free to trackback to this post. Consider this an open forum for any of your posts that you feel has not gotten the attention it deserves over the last week. If you would like, please utilize the 'trackback' function, or if you like, you could always do it the old-fashioned way via the 'comments' section.
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."The New York Times would have you believe this was all this soldier's letter stated.
"I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."Unfortunately, the life of this soldier was mired by the transparently political posture of this story from the New York Times.
Hat Tip -
Right Track ~ Stuck on Stupid ~ Michelle Malkin
What is to happen next?
I must say that I am not completely dissapointed that she withdrew. Hopefully, President Bush has learned from this and we will see a reflection in his next candidate of what he promised us in the run up to 2004. As your humble pundit has said before,
"As for now, your humble pundit will withhold any official stance upon the matter, for one must not rush to conclusions in these matters until all the information to be mulled over is indeed mulled over; however, with that said, President Bush has disappointed many of us, again. The decision should not be one with much question at all, and his choice should resemble something that he promised during his campaign. Conservatives deserve better, President Bush. Miers may inevitably turn into a conservative icon some day, but conservatives deserve better than to cross their fingers and pray, hoping that this will come to fruition.
President Bush stated what he would do if given this monumental opportunity during both of his campaigns for the presidency. Judge Roberts was an enigma, but proved himself to be a worthy choice through his uncanny ability to articulate his jurisprudential philosophy before the Judiciary Committee. Yet, all in all, we do not truly know where and how his actions will lead the Court as Chief Justice. This same logic should be construed in analyzing the Miers nomination, except this time, the more we find out about this nominee illustrates how much we truly do not know about this nominee."
The President's Statement is here.
Jonah Goldberg calls it "Brilliant Rovian"
Stop the ACLU wonders who will be next...
SCOTUS Blog has the President's statment in its entirety.
Indepundit says that no one is surprised.
GOP & the City says it was not meant to be.
Blogs for Bush talks about the speculation.
North American Patriot: Holy Crappers!
The Moderate Voice has extensive coverage.
JunkYardBlog says Good!
The Right Track says "let's get back to the basics."
Myopic Zeal has a roundup.
GOP and College did support this nomination.
GOPbloggers calls for us to re-unify.
Iowa Voice: Hip-Hip-Hooray!!!
Michelle Malkin says what a relief.
Project Nothing! says Miers got "piled on."
American Lights: "And She's Outta Here!"
CatHouse Chat: "So Now What?"
Oblogatory Anecdotes reminds us of the prediction.
Weapons of Mass Destruction says she took the hint.
California Conservative has a roundup.
Donkey Stomp says it is a shame.
Wizbang! has extensive coverage.
Cao's Blog calls it an 'interesting development.'
Captain's Quarters labels it a "face-saving withdrawl."
PoliBlog has the Blogospheric Reactions
Euphoric Reality has an open post on the matter.
Purple States ask if this was a surprise.
Outside the Beltway suspected correctly.
Musing Minds says we need to get over it.
Aggressive Conservative: Holy Moly!
ProLifeBlogs has a roundup.
Quantum Catfish takes a lighthearted approach.
All Things Beautiful has the letter and a roundup.
Becoming a Beacon
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's landmark constitutional was adopted by a majority of voters during the country's Oct. 15 referendum, election officials said Tuesday.
Results released by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq showed that Sunni Arabs, who had sharply opposed the draft document, failed to produce the two-thirds "no" vote they would have needed in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces to defeat it.
The commission, which had been auditing the referendum results for 10 days, said at a news conference in Baghdad that Ninevah province, had produced a "no" vote of only 55 percent. Only two other mostly Sunni Arab provinces - Salahuddin and Anbar - had voted no by two-thirds
The constitution, which many Kurds and majority Shiites strongly support, is considered another major step in the country's democratic transformation, clearing the way for the election of a new Iraqi parliament on Dec. 15. Such steps are considered important in any decision about the future withdrawal of U.S.-led forces from Iraq.
The Iraqis have become the first Arab nation to formally adopt a constitution which invokes the fundamental ideals of democracy. All in all, what has come about through this process is remarkable when one considers what is in store for this re-birthed nation. This nation endured the reign of terror under one of the most heinous despots this planet has ever known, but through the aid of the United States, Iraq has not lost focus on its goals of becoming a shining example in a region known for its turmoil and strife. Much like the United States when we embarked on our own experiment just 200 odd years ago; much of the world has similar doubts and similar criticisms of Iraq's prospects for the future.
It should not be forgotten that such ne'er do-well rhetoric and criticism was said about us when we shed the 'inescapable' bounds of British tyranny. We embarked on our own journey even though such a dream had not been contemplated by any other people. Yet, we have endured and we have prospered with an ambition unparalleled before or since. Herein is where the parallels exist, for the Iraqi people must cope with being the only Arab nation attempting such a noble endeavor. Their neighbors only await their demise with glee and gnashing of teeth at every sign of weakness. However, just as Americans have become the beacon of freedom for the world over, the Iraqis will become the beacon of freedom for the Middle East. Their remarkable achievement is but one more milestone crossed in a long journey.
Captain's Quarters labels states the terrorists were 'repudiated.'
Conservative Outpost wants to discuss the 'good news.'
A Conservative's Corner calls it a 'true victory.'
RightPundit says that democracy is 'marching on.'
Running Scared 'really could care less.'
The Bernoulli Effect discusses the MSM's reaction.
The Jawa Report calls it 'another milestone.'
Don Singleton wishes the Iraqi people the best of luck in December.
The Strata-Sphere discusses who is on 'permanent ignore.'
hubs and spokes reports on the 'good news.'
As both GOPbloggers and BlogsForBush report this morning,
THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes...
Mr Annan had pledged repeatedly through his chief spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, that he would not change a word of the report by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. But computer tracking showed that the final edit began at about 11.38am on Thursday, a minute after
Herr Mehlis began a meeting with Mr Annan to present his report. The names of Maher al-Assad, General Shawkat and the others were apparently removed at 11.55am, after the meeting ended.
Yet, in but what is just a small representation of the perpetual corruption plaguing this organization, world leaders such as President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are vilified as the gravest danger to world peace. Are they not merely fulfilling the promises and statements made by this organization?
Christian Coalition Blog is following this story.
Conservative Outpost is also following this story.
CrossPosted @ It Is What It Is
Actions Are Speaking Louder
As Mac Johnson states this morning,
Secretary Chertoff stated at the same Senate hearing in which he announced the administration’s new found sense of responsibility for law enforcement:Johnson goes on to discuss an example that a German experiement provides for the United States. It seems as though that Bush policies are just being recylced, insteat of a catclysmic shift in policy, we are getting more of the same action under different words.
We're going to need more than just brute enforcement . . . We're going to need a temporary worker program as well.First, let me say that we have no idea what "rute enforcement" can accomplish. We've never tried it. Right now we have "no enforcement." So what do you say we start with pansy enforcement and work our way up to brute enforcement before we start
bad-mouthing it? As a matter of fact, let's declare December to be "National Brute Enforcement Month," because I have really high hopes for it. That being said, let’s look at just how "temporary" any proposed guest worker program is likely to be. This is not a subject we have to
leave to our imagination either (like brute enforcement) because this idea has actually been tried in a very similar nation. "Guest worker" is a direct translation of the German term "Gastarbeiter."
The Right Track has an excellent video production on this matter.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst, which takes place every Monday on Euphoric Reality. The purpose is to keep immigration issues at the forefront and to apply pressure to our elected officials to get the problem fixed. If you're concerned about the state of our borders, email kit.jarrell at gmail dot com to join.
Weekend Open Trackbacks & [Your] Caption of the Week
Also, if you have any posts or stories you feel warrant a larger audience, please feel free to trackback to this post. Consider this an open forum for any of your posts that you feel has not gotten the attention it deserves over the last week. If you would like, please utilize the 'trackback' function, or if you like, you could always do it the old-fashioned way via the 'comments' section.
I will be away from a computer for most of the weekend, but I encourage any and all of my readers to return from time to time for the trackbacks that inevitably will be added throughout the course of the weekend. Take care and have a wonderful weekend!
"Whatcha gonna do, when the Hulkster and the 24 inch pythons, run wild on YOU?!?"
(Thanks to Right Fielder @ Right Field)
However, as Florida began to pick up the pieces, what was not heard was any angst and gnashing of teeth from those within the leadership ranks of that state. Democrats, and those on the left, will be quick to scoff an any assertion since the President's brother, Jeb Bush, currently maintains the governorship of Florida, but his dynamic leadership permeates through all levels of government in that state. His actions, and the actions of agencies under his watch quickly and resoundingly met the challenges wrought by the storms of 2004. The people of Florida reeled from being incessantly lashed, yet those citizens emerged with the tools and resources needed to overcome these obstacles.
The fundamental tenets of federalism are undoubtedly intertwined as America discusses the issues spawned in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As conservatives in the blogosphere reiterated consistently after the debacle, the resources available to meet the needs of the citizens of New Orleans and Louisiana were not utilized by the local authorities. Florida utilized similar resources, but the differences as to why these resources were not used can only be traced to the capability of the leadership to implement these resources. These resources and tools were at their disposal, but due to an inability to make any semblance of a decision, Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin led their constituents down a path of strife and turmoil. It was an imperfect combination of Louisiana being a liberal bastion for the latter half of the twentieth century and this liberal bastion producing such poor leaders that led to this travesty. Liberalism run amuck spawns a complete and utter dependency of constituents to their leaders, and herein these leaders failed their constituents in the worst possible way.
Contrast such reaction taken in Louisiana with the leadership exhibited by Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. This is not a Republican versus Democrat issue as much as it is a distinction between the mantra emanated by the liberal methodology versus the fundamental tenets of federalism. As this news story illustrates, Governor Jeb Bush emphatically rejects any notion that calls for expanding federal control of emergencies such as we have unfortunately seen over the course of these last few years. What is striking about travesty is even some conservatives such as President Bush have lost sight on these key principles, the problems of Louisiana can be distinguished by the brilliant record of Florida, and the ignored course of action taken by Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Both of these leaders exhibited leadership and what is required to lead citizens through times of turmoil. Local governments and local authorities are best able to attenuate the needs of their constituents. The crux of our constitution is formulated with such tenets and this nation has unfortunately forgotten this over the course of its life.
Congress should heed the words of Governor Bush as it wants to rectify the wrongs exposed by Hurricane Katrina. The model is Florida and Mississippi, it should not be more of the same. Why is Governor Bush's example of how to deal with emergencies being ignored?
Cobb County officials are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed in August by the Georgia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union charging the county with making "overly Christian" prayers before meetings.
Cobb Commission Chairman Sam Olens and Cobb Planning Commission Chairman Bob Homan were both named as defendants in the ACLU's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. Seven Cobb County residents were also plaintiffs in the suit.
The ACLU claims the prayers before commission meetings are too Christian. One prayer ended, "in the name of Jesus our savior," and dozens more since 2003 mentioned Jesus, according to the lawsuit.
The ACLU is not challenging the commission's right to pray before meetings.
Should this story not be further proof of what has become obvious to many Americans? The ACLU is not a neutral arbiter or some noble protector of our civil liberties as they would assert, the ACLU has an agenda bent on the secularization of America. There cause is not one of protecting the constitution. This story illustrates the goals of their endeavor, to eradicate any semblance of Christianity from the public square.
Why else is it somehow accepted that Islam be promulgated amongst our children, yet in most other circumstances symbols of Christmas are too putrid to enter out classrooms? It is time for America to awaken from slumber and realize the enemy within. Communities should grow ill of reading about their counterparts being dismantled in another jurisdiction for they should realize that they could be next.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Over 115 blogs already onboard.
Tagged With A Meme
It boils down to this burning question:
"If you could hang a sign on the ACLU building to draw attention to it, what would you put on your sign?"
From here, I am tagging:
Right Fielder from The Right Field
Zeke from It is What it Is
T. Goodrich from A Conservative's Corner
Stuck on Stupid
Ken from Oblogatory Anecdotes
'Tagees' in my list should link to and trackback to this post!
Finally, here is the "geneology." Tag-ees need to add their blog to the bottom of this list - but don't take anyone off the top. David wants to see how far this will go. So, make sure you include your whole "meme-ology" and don’t forget to go crazy with the linky love and trackbacks.
Third World County
"A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and one other, a court official said Wednesday. Judge Santiago Pedraz issued the warrant for Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp, all from the U.S. 3rd Infantry. Jose Couso, who worked for the Spanish television network Telecinco, died April 8, 2003, after a U.S. army tank crew fired a shell on Hotel Palestine in Baghdad where several journalists were staying to cover the war. Reuters cameraman Taras Portsyuk, a Ukrainian, also was killed. The Spanish judge said he issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial cooperation from the United States regarding the case. U.S. officials insist the soldiers believed they were being shot at when they opened fire. Following the Palestine incident, Secretary of State Colin Powell said a review of the incident found that the use of force was justified. In late 2003, the National Court, acting on a request from Couso’s family, agreed to consider filing criminal charges against three members of theThe Jawa Report brings up an excellent point regarding this matter. Was it not liberals who went up in arms when President Bush rejected the United Nations efforts to consolidate power in the International Criminal Court? This is just utter lunancy.
Reaganites Unite! wants a warrant issued...
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Why is this such a watershed statement worthy of headline status? Chertoff is merely stating the laws of this nation will be enforced [in less than a year]. GOPbloggers illuminates upon a parcel of this issue I find to be more intriguing, who in the coming months will be observing those who 'oppose this shift in strategy?' But, were these his actual statements?
Anyone who enters the United States illegally should be expelled without exception, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate hearing today. "Our goal at DHS is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions," he said. "It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year."
As Michelle Malkin points out, The Immigration Blog has an entirely different outlook on Chertoff's remarks.
He wasn't referring to deporting all illegal aliens. He was in fact only referring to those OTMs ("Other than Mexicans") caught at the border. Most of them are given a notice to appear and released into the U.S. and never heard from again. He pledged to end that "catch and release" by adding new detention space.Why are the laws already enacted meaningless? On this issue, are leaders are egregiously failing to provide each of us what should be their utmost priority, security.
Euphoric Reality gives a 'HELL YEAH!'
Say Anything discusses the 'about face.'
Chateau D'If says "It's About Time"
Kirbside Musings will believe when they say see it.
A Blog For All asks if Chertoff can 'walk the walk.'
Kokonut Pundits says 'FINALLY!'
OpinionBug calls it smoke and mirrors.
Mr. Right was taken aback much as I was.
The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill is not giving any more money.
Little Bit Tired, Little Bit Worn is skeptical.
Inconceivable...or, is it?
Sparked by today’s Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "It’s certainly an interesting but I still think highly doubtful scenario," said a Bush insider. "And if that should happen," added the official, "there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated – another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP." Said another Bush associate of the rumor, "Yes. This is not good." The rumor spread so fast that some Republicans by late morning were already drawing up reasons why Rice couldn’t get the job or run for president in 2008. "Isn’t she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide. Many White House insiders, however, said the Post story and reports that the investigation was coming to a close had officials instead more focused on who would be dragged into the affair and if top aides would be indicted and forced to resign. "Folks on the inside and near inside are holding their breath and wondering what’s next," said a Bush adviser. But, he added, they aren’t focused on the future of the vice president. "Not that, at least not seriously," he said.
Barking Moonbat seems to think that this scenario is quite plausible; however, your humble pundit is not buying into this at all. I do not think such is within the realm of feasibility. Again, I shall take flack for a statement such as this, but methinks this is much ado about nothing. Politics is politics no matter what political party. Republicans are not above playing politics and I think this is what we have before our eyes. With all the Bush Administration is coping with at this point in time, the White House is letting the loose lips divert from some of the items in the news absorbing too much attention.
As Myopic Zeal rhetorically asks, "[d]o conservatives really want Condi? Maybe this is an end run around conservatives."
The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even
stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.
One would think President Bush would take heed of such stalwart conservatives who have come out questioning the nomination. Furthermore, not all conservatives have emphatically rejected this nominee, we have just expressed legitimate concerns. But, any questioning of this candidate has been deemed completely unreasonable and disturbing by some. Is this the precedent we want to set for ourselves? Formalism over substance? And, instead of reacting in a manner to assuage the fears of those who catapulted him into office, President Bush chooses to disregard these concerns. The mantra of "trust me" uttered since the announcement of the Miers nomination has not resonated well within the conservative base. In such an attitude, President Bush fails to recognize how this comes across to many within his base of supporters. In the least, he fails to recall what Oblogatory Anecdotes reminded us of with President Ronald Reagan's famous utterance of "trust, but verify."
And yet, it seems as though the only strategy this White House wishes to pursue will ultimately result in a substantial battle, if not an all out war. On one front, President Bush seems to be ignoring some within his own base altogether, thus they will continue to incessantly demand knowing more of this nominee or, in the worse case, will begin escalating into demanding a new nominee. Correspondingly, the democrats are salivating with the false assumption that conservatives are cannibalizing themselves as the confirmation hearings loom on the horizon.
This path chosen by President Bush is not altogether surprising. President Bush has been steadfast in defending those around him, and this process proves to be more of the same. As Reganites Unite! reports, President Bush is alienating some within his base in a move that scorns those refusing to follow him blindly.
"For 25 years, Tom Rath has been the Bush family's New Hampshire go-to guy: an affable lawyer, member of the Republican National Committee—and prize catch for any would-be contender in the GOP's next presidential race. It was no surprise, then, that when George W. Bush's political team wanted to send ambitious Republican senators a firm message about Harriet Miers (crude summary: "Lay off her if you ever want our help"), they chose Rath to deliver it. On his own, or through an allied group called Progress for America, Rath last week made the family's view clear to George Allen of Virginia and Sam Brownback of Kansas, likely candidates on scouting missions to the first-in-the-nation primary state...President Bush will need to do something more than merely re-launch a campaign in support of Miers. Rarely does such campaign gain traction, particularly when the poor first impression to be polished is so fresh on the minds of those targeted. If things do not start looking brighter for this nominee, then she will more than likely withdraw her name from consideration. What that means is beyond speculation at this point in time, but it all could have been prevented entirely if President Bush had not put himself into this precarious situation to begin with...
But the New Hampshire play looked a little forced—and struck some as evidence of a political machine that had lost its bearings, and even its skill, in a whorl of war, hurricanes, scandal, internal strife and second-term ennui. Threatening conservatives is not how Bush rose to power—just the opposite."
Lack of Faith
Yet, when it comes to reporting real news, that real individuals in America would be concerned with, the MSM comes up woefully lacking in any semblance of credence or creditibility. To further this assertion, as Euphoric Reality passes along to us in an utterly tragic story developing out of Florida.
Has anyone in my audience heard this story involving this Florida woman who was maliciously raped by 14 men in Florida?
Would you deem it worthy of natioanl attention if these 14 men were illegal immigrants?
Does the MSM even understand what is transpiring before their own eyes? It should be transparently obvious to any person with an ounce of common sense in seeing the MSM's blatant attempts to promulgate an agenda against President Bush. Last week was filled with glee and an energetic zeal with reports over and over again discussing the Karl Rove non-story and President Bush's alleged staged event. Yet, on the other hand, as Euphoric Reality articulates,
Is the MSM picking up the story yet? Of course not. it doesn't fit their pro-illegals agenda. News flash for the clueless: These people are not 'undocumented workers'. They are, in many cases, criminals. This could have been your daughter. Your sister. Your wife. Your mother. Raped, beaten, and left for dead in the street by a bunch of thugs who aren't even supposed to be here. It was someone's daughter that this happened to.
Should agendas warrant priority over stories such as the one from Florida on issues of monumental concern to this nation? It is time for our partisan bickering to be put aside on matters of this magnitude. This should be an issue both parties could find a mutually beneficial resolution; however, at the expense of the American people, we are subjugated to partisan games as politicans vy for support through pandering to certain segments of our poopulation. America must demand that instances such as those befalling the Florida woman are not going to occur in our streets, neighborhoods and towns.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst, which takes place every Monday on Euphoric Reality. The purpose is to keep immigration issues at the forefront and to apply pressure to our elected officials to get the problem fixed. If you’re concerned about the state of our borders, email kit.jarrell at gmail dot com to join.
Not much is to be construed at this point in time, but it seems as though Muhammed Ackbar Acamar bin Screwdup from the Global Islamic Media Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, has called for a jihad against certain members of the blogosphere. Specifically, threats have been made against Cao's Blog, Right on the Right & StoptheACLU.
As more information develops, I will keep you posted.
Saturday Synopsis (5th ed.) & Open Trackback Weekend!
- Donkey Stomp began tallying which blogs were for which camp pertaining to the Miers nomination with 'Conservatives, Hold Your Fire!'
- The Right Track began video blogging on some issues this week (here with 'The Enemy Within') and the results turned out wonderful. I think they may have started a trend, not to mention, a debate, which now spans to Cao's Blog here.
- Pirate's Cove introduced me to the American Flag League, it is easy to join and well worth the effort. Check out the criteria here.
Do not forget, feel free to leave ANY and ALL trackbacks you feel merit a wider audience. And, if you are having an open forum for trackbacks, let me know, as well.
Other blogs with open trackbacks: Oblogatory Anecdotes ~ Stop the ACLU ~ My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ~ Mudville Gazette ~ Big Dog's ~ Random Numbers ~ Reaganites Unite! ~ The Indepundit ~ My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ~ Basil's Blog ~ Jo's Cafe
[Your] Caption of the Week
"Algore finally pulls the stick out of his butt!"
(Courtesy of Ken Bingham @ Oblogatory Anecdotes)
I, along with most Americans, grow weary of such 'controversies' being around each and every corner. The way in which this President is incessantly attacked for each and every action in which he is in engaged is nothing short of preposterous. I am not trying to assert that he is somehow devoid of imperfections by any stretch of the imagination nor I suggesting that the press should not investigate matters warranting presentation to the American people, but what your humble pundit asserts is that the MSM's dogmatic goal of smearing this president and his policies do nothing for the betterment of this nation.
Bill Sammon, made an excellent point yesterday on FoxNews' Special Report with Brit Hume,
During the panel segment, Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon, responding to a comment from Morton Kondracke: "You mentioned that this press conference was scripted and the administration has taken a huge hit today about, you know, they scripted this press conference. It's funny, but when that reporter back in December asked Rumsfeld about armor and that question had been planted by the reporter -- I'm sorry, the soldier asked Rumsfeld and the question had been planted by a reporter, I didn't hear any outcry from the press, but now that we're rehearsing it from the Pentagon we're hearing all this talk about it."
Blogs 4 Bush distinguishes this particular instance involving President Bush from what it means in reality for any event to be 'staged.' Needless to say, any public presentation made by any public official, warrants professionalism and foresight for effective management. As B4B states,
The article [AP Story]then proceeds to explain how Bush had certain topics or issues he wanted to ask about, and the soldier who answered the particular question was predetermined....
The word "staged" impliesat least to me something completely scripted... Even the opening paragraph of story used the word "choreographed" to describe the eventwhich is a bit more accurate. Later on in the story, it explains that White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. The fact that the AP found this to be something worth writing about says a lot too.
Seemingly, in an all too predictable manner, the MSM fails to appreciate their hypocrisy exposed in these matters. Countless instances involving one of the most transparent, poll-driven president's this nation has seen are leignoredned; and were given a free pass at the time they occurred as PoliPundit reports, yet this president is culpable for some wrong. Instances such as ex-President Clinton's blatantly transparent "cross in the sand on the beach of Normandy" incident are nothing short of laughable, yet these instances are not taken to task with the saveracityity as President Bush is fmerelyrly prepping the troops with questions before he asks them. There are numerous other instances where the media itself is directly involved with staging events in like manners and similar circumstances.
Why is that this President is berated by the MSM for stuff for which they are actually engaged? Dare I say that this is the definition of hypocrisy and a blatant display of their agenda?
As the MSM continues to churn with this non-story, take a moment to read an excellent analogy of this situation provided to us by the Iowa Voice,
Nobody was told how to answer, nobody was told what questions were going to be asked, and THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is what being "staged" is all about: when you already know the questions and the answers advance. As.As for who gets to answer which question, I'm sure they decided who was the most experienced or qualified to answer a specific type of question, so they decided to let that person field the question. It's like if I went to my doctor and he found a tumor. Would I ask HIM the questions, or would I ask the nurse? Would I ask HIM about my treatments, or would I go question the receptionist? Given the fact that he's the doctor, and has the training and the experience, I think I would ask him my questions.
The Moderate Voice accumulated numerous perspectives on the story.
Right Track discusses the MSM's glass house.
Donkey Stomp evaluates the hypocrisy in the media
Sister Toldjah says it is 'just stupid.'
TheAgitator discusses 'The World's Biggest Stage.'
Newsbusters discusses the 'shocked' MSM over the 'choreography.'
Right Field is 'yawning' over the matter.
Say Anything asks everyone to apply some 'sommon sense.'
Conservativity reinds us of what really happened.
The Daily Brief discusses the 'ruckus.'
Kokonut Pundits exposes the transparency of Bill Clinton.
Point Five expounds upon Andrea Mitchell's 'scoop.'
Brutally Honest discusses the 'key findings.'
Macsmind talks about the 'bust.'
Christian Coalition of America provides an extensive hub of links.
Stop the ACLU Blogburst
Don't think it couldn't happen to you. Right now, there are those out there watching it happen to them. What can you do? If the ACLU wins, guess who pays for it? Thats right, you do.
I found the following at ReclaimAmerica.Org
U.S. Representative John Hostettler has introduced legislation which seeks to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from collecting millions of dollars in court awards when they seek to remove symbols of the Christian faith from society.
The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, "The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief."
ACLU Generates Revenue in Courtroom Campaign
The ACLU was awarded $156,960 after a judge overturned an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment was approved by 70 percent of Nebraska voters.
$790,000 = San Diego
The ACLU was given $790,000 after suing to nullify a lease between the city of San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America. A federal judge sided with the ACLU, ruling that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because they require kids to pledge an oath to God and promise to live a "morally straight"
$150,000 = Barrow County (Ga.)
The ACLU was awarded $150,000 after suing to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the Barrow County Courthouse.
$615,500 = Florida Supreme Court
The Florida Supreme Court established the Florida Bar Foundation and then commissioned the foundation to provide $615,500 to the ACLU of Florida between the years of 1990 and 1997.
$121,500 = Kentucky
The ACLU was awarded $121,500 after suing to remove a monument outside of the Kentucky Capitol building.
$277,000 = Kentucky
The ACLU was awarded a whopping $277,000 after suing to overturn a state law against abortion in 1994.
$299,500 = Kentucky
In 2001, the ACLU was awarded more than $299,500 after suing to overturn abortion regulations in Kentucky.
$50,000 = Tennessee
A Tennessee County was forced to pay the ACLU $50,000 after losing a legal battle to preserve a display of the Ten Commandments.
$37,037 = Loudoun County (Va.)
The ACLU was awarded $37,037 after winning a lawsuit to prevent a Loudoun County (Va.) from installing pornography filters on public library computers.
$175,000 = Alabama
Following the lawsuit, involving former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, state taxpayers were forced to pay nearly $550,000 in attorney fees and court costs. Of that, $175,000 went to the ACLU.
$63,000 = California
Taxpayers were forced to give the ACLU a whopping $63,000 after their lawsuit to remove a World War One Memorial Cross from the Mojave National Preserve.
$74,462 = Habersham County (Ga.)
The ACLU received $74,462 from Georgia taxpayers after suing to remove a Ten Commandments display from the Habersham County (Ga.) Courthouse.
$25,000 = Pulaski County (Ark.)
The ACLU was awarded $25,000 after suing an Arkansas county for telling the child's parents that the 14-year-old boy was living an openly gay lifestyle in school.
$135,000 = Cobb County (Ga.)
The ACLU is scheduled to receive $135,000 from Cobb County taxpayers, after suing the county to remove warning stickers from the district biology books. The stickers simply read, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact."
$75,000 = Pasco (Wash.)
The city of Pasco, Washington was forced to pay the ACLU $75,000 after they lost a lawsuit to remove the painting of a naked woman from the Pasco City Hall.
$52,000 = Seattle (Wash.)
Residents in Seattle, Washington, were ordered to pay $52,000 to the ACLU — for defending a student's "right" to mock the assistant principal in a sexual online parodies … sodomizing Homer Simpson and appearing in Viagra commercials.
$6,000,000 = American taxpayers
The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court's decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Reportedly, these lawsuits affected thirty states.
$18,000 = London (Ohio)
After suing London, Ohio, for allowing their football coach to host a voluntary prayer for athletes, the ACLU was awarded $18,000 in attorney fees.
$110,000 = Multnomah County (Oregon)
Incredibly, Multnomah County taxpayers were asked to pay a whopping $110,000 after the ACLU sued them for allowing the Boy Scouts of America to recruit on public school campuses.
$111,000 = Operation Rescue
Operation Rescue was ordered to pay the ACLU $111,000 after losing a lawsuit in which the ACLU sought to prevent the organization from picketing near abortion clinics.
$230,000">San Diego (California)
San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.
Don't let it happen to your town, or if it is going to happen...don't pay for it. Reclaiming America has put together a petition that already has over 100,000 signatures. We also have a petition asking for the same thing, to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU in Establishment Clause cases. You can sign both petitions here. Help us curb the secularization of America.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
Exposing the Soft Underbelly
DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, Bush promised to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Now the bill has come due, and the response the president's supporters have received has been: 'trust me.' Some have noted similarities between this nomination and the last 'trust me' Republican nomination to the Supreme Court, David Souter. Bush the Elder told conservatives that Souter would be a 'home run.'Yet, I believe that a new pandora's box has been opened today with the news surrounding Dr. James Dobson's statements surrounding the firestorm engulfing him as of late. Herein, Dr. Dobson discussed that Karl Rove did, in fact, personally assure him of Miers merits and assuaged his fears pertaining to the murkiness surrounding her credentials. However, what I find to be a crucial caveat revealed by his statments regards what Karl Rove reavealed to him in his assurances. Specifically, Mr. Rove admitted that Miers was not President Bush's first choice. As reported by the Drudge Report,
In the past few months, Bush has had two opportunities to fulfill his own election pledge. The president instead selected a brilliant, but largely untested, Rehnquist acolyte and his personal attorney. Conservatives want to know how Miers fulfills his election pledge. Instead of getting any clear evidence of a conservative scholar or action in support of conservative judicial
initiatives, the Bush administration has kept its lips silent after demanding trust.
'What Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it,' Dobson said, according to the transcript.
Personally, this seems to be that much more damning to this nomination and the hurdles President Bush has to overcome with his base. I find it incredibly dissapointing that this admission bears credence through someone as close as Rove to President Bush. Conservatives are not naive, and I think it is elemenatary to immediately assume that conservatives (and anyone, for that matter) is solely attacking this woman based upon her sex. This is to the point of being insulting to anyone critizing this decision. There are legitimate concerns conservatives should have on a decision of this magnitude. Politics are inevitably involved with anything President Bush engages, and, a woman being nominated can be construed as mandatory for the due to this nature of who was retiring. With such said, your humble pundit still finds it extremely disspointing that this President took a poltical path more expedient for him rather than fulfilling a fundamental issue promised to his base.
What are we conservatives supposed to take from the tactics surrounding this nomination? Nothing seems to be falling into place for the Bush Administration as we move closer and closer to the nomination process in the Senate next month. Essentially, we know nothing of this woman and have no possible way (as of now) of ascertaining what her ascension (if it occurs) will mean for the Court's future. As alluded to by Captain's Quarters, President Bush has taken a 'trust me' approach to us, which has put him in a precarious position with his base. Instead of understanding our concerns of knowing nothing of this nominee, Presidnet Bush has now begun to go on the offensive with those questioning his judgement.
Now, as we have learned today, she was not even President Bush's first choice. How is this to play as a factor into his 'trust me' strategy? It is eroding his creditibility on the matter, it further emboldens the rhetoric and assertions many conservatives have uttered since the announcement was first made. How is this stark constrast to be reconciled by President Bush? We are not sexist or any other asserted accusations emanating now, we are curiuous.
Donkey Stomp - Conservatives, Hold Your Fire! California Conservative - The Laura Bush “It’s Possible” Controversy Blogs for Bush - On Misunderestimating W The Hedgehog Blog - Clarence Thomas and Harriet Miers: What's the Difference? Hugh Hewitt - Defending Harriet Miers... Professor Bainbridge - The SCOTUS is Not a Patronage Appointment Michelle Malkin - MRS. BUSH & THE SEXISM CARD Democracy Project - Which Bush is President? Hard Starboard - A Kick To The Nads From A Very Nice Lady Hyscience - The Sexism Card Speak Easy - Sexism? It's Possible Cao's Blog - Bashing Laura Bush Sister Toldjah - The Laura Bush "It's Possible" Controversy It'sAPundit - The Sex Card Media Lies - Have conservatives lost their minds? All Things Beautiful - The First Lady and Professor Althouse SerandEz - Laura Bush: Not Accusing Left of Sexism Don Surber - Malkin In The Middle Stop the ACLU - Now Lets Bash Mrs. Bush! The M. Sheldon Show - I May Pay for This One ProLifeBlogs - Is Bush Pro-Roe? Mr. Snitch! - Michelle Malkin laps it up The Moderate Voice - Republican Sexist Staffers Blasting Miers Nomination & Bush Does More Than Wink: Says He Picked Miers Partly For Her Religion Reganites Unite! - A Simple Miers Analogy
Why was he rejected membership if he was merely trying to serve his constituents by becoming attuned to their needs through this caucus? Besides mere allegations, is there irrefutable evidence that his motivations can be construed as impure? The only answer this story seems to provide is an all too familiar response,
"Only blacks can become full members - full and equal members," Campfield said. "I think that's the definition of racism." The chairman of the caucus, Johnny Shaw, says at first he dismissed Campfield's request as a joke. Now, however, he thinks Campfield has other motives. "I think the issue is money. He probably wants to know how we spend our money," Shaw said. [emphasis added]
So, it is all about the money according to Mr. Shaw. Given, there is a strong possibility that this scenario is nothing more than a political ploy concocted by Mr. Campfield in order to draw attention to himself for some selfish political advancement. Yet, in this entire charade, I share some of the same sentiments as The Wide Awakes stance taken in 'Only Whites Can Be Racist.' Give America just a little more credit than this, Mr. Shaw, your humble pundit, nor most Americans are not so naive to be spoken to as a child when you stipulate that this was just a joke. There is more to be gleamed from this story, for it represents what racial relations have become in America.
What should be taken away from this episode is that it epitomizes the concerns many Americans share with programs such as 'institutionalized affirmative action' and its progeny. When will these programs see their demise? Most Americans are concerned these programs will continue into perpetuity when black leaders such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton continue spreading their seeds of discontent through their race-baiting tactics. All Americans continue to hear is that there are still racial tensions pervasive throughout all fifty states. This rhetoric and thesedisingenuouss ploys grow quite old, it is time for America to begin a new discussion of what tremendous progress has been made in the last half century. Can this be the new topic for discussion? The majority of Americans do not even think of race as they go about their daily lives, yet in the instances such as we have here in Nashville, we are told these are open wounds that are unable to heal. Though, here in Nashville, the proverbial shoe is on someone else's foot entirely. Herein, why is the burden of proof automatically construed against Mr. Campfield? Is it possible for someone besides a black representative to have pure motives in matters pertaining to race relations? It seems as though this heightened awareness on nothing other than the color of one's skin is what America has been trying to eradicate. Why must these shadows of doubt and mistrust be promulgated by the minority now? Was it not the 50s and 60s that saw blacks extending their hands in trust? What has changed since those days? Your humble pundit postulates that the leadership foisted upon blacks is somewhat shallow, for we have entered into an era where America reciprocates a hand of trust, but, seemingly, blacks have followed their leaders in withdrawing any efforts to move forward from the past.
Where will it end? But, more importantly, when will the trust begin to take the place of this shadow of doubt for every action taken? Blacks cannot consistentlychastisee whites in any and all their efforts to ease racial tensions. Mr Shaw has the potential to be a dynamic leader in this situation, if he truly believes that the motives of Mr. Campfield are impure, he should expose him by being a better person. Let his own corrupt actions speak for themselves and expose this person for what he truly is when it becomes apparent. Do not assume that someone is to be mistrusted until they have proven themselves otherwise. Unfortunately, with the likes of Mr. Shaw, the same old mantra is carried further as he does nothing but predictability play the same, familiar most Americans have grown accustomed to.