Publius Rendezvous

WHERE YOU CAN FIND ME....

2005-11-04T06:10:00.000-08:00

Publius Rendezvous can now be found at www.publiusrendezvous.com. I thank you in advance for changing your blogrolls and links. I am sorry for the inconvenience, and I look forward to seeing you at my new little corner of the blogosphere. Please spread the word and let everyone know!

Publius Rendezvous is MOVING!

2005-10-31T10:02:00.000-08:00

I would hoope that my readers will be patient with me over the course of the next several days as I am in the process of securing a new URL and template. Please return for updates as they become available and please be patient with me throughout the process.

Weekend Open Trackbacks & [Your] Caption of the Week

2005-10-28T04:30:00.000-07:00

Other Blogs with Open TrackBacks

Cao's Blog ~ BIG DOG's/ WEBLOG ~ Blue State Conservatives/ TheChoose Life ~ GM's Corner ~ NIF ~ Real Teen-/ Right on the Right ~ Soldiers' Angel /- Holly Aho ~ Stop The ACLU ~ The Political Teen ~ Templar Pundit ~ Adam's Blog TB URL ~ Bloggin' Outloud ~ Conservative Cat ~ Jo’s Cafe TGIF Specials TB URL ~ MacStansbury.org TB URL ~ NIF TB URL ~ Publius Rendezvous TB URL ~ Soldiers' Angel – Holly Aho TB URL ~ The Indepundit Friday TB URL~ The Junction TB URL~ The Political Teen Friday TB URL ~ My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ~ Oblogatory Anecdotes ~ The Right Track TB

Editorial Discretion

2005-10-28T04:00:00.000-07:00

"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

The Final Chapter[?]

2005-10-27T06:37:00.000-07:00

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers _ and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

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

2005-10-25T15:00:00.000-07:00

It is nothing short of astounding what has transpired halfway across this planet.

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
or more.
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.'

UNacceptable

2005-10-25T05:00:00.000-07:00

When will any semblance of realism transcend the idealism forcing our continued support of the United Nations? The United Nations began as an idealistic, noble effort to promulgate world peace during a time when the world craved such a noble endeavor; however, this idealistic pursuit has been overtaken by a conglomerate of despots who now wield world power since they are able to consolidate their collective power behind a pale blue cloak. The very endeavor undertaken by the United Nations has escalated into utter failure in the last 10 years. From the War in Iraq to leaders within the UN propping up Saddam Hussein via the Oil for Food scandal, the time has come for the world to face reality.

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

2005-10-24T07:30:00.000-07:00

As your humble pundit mentioned last week, the tremendous shift propulgated by the Bush Administration in regards to illegal immigration was well recieved by many, however, as I stated, we should take such rhetoric for what it is and wait until such rhetoric is implemented into policy.

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:
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."

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.

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

2005-10-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

Readers should know the rules by now, but in case you do not, they are quite simple. With this photograph, you simply provide a "caption" in the comments section and I will scrape together the best at the end of the weekend to caption the photograph the actual photograph. With former ten horn despot Saddam Hussein facing the preliminary procedural matters for his upcoming trial, what better person to be in the cross hairs this weekend. Happy Caption-ing!

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)

Other Blog's with Open TrackBacks

Cao's Blog ~ Adam's Blog ~ Outside the Beltway ~ Mudville Gazette ~ MacStansbury.org ~ Indepundit ~ The Political Teen ~ Jo's Cafe ~ Oblogatory Anecdotes ~ BIG DOG's WEBLOG ~ BRight and Early

Forgotten Principles From A Forgotten Governor

2005-10-21T05:00:00.000-07:00

As Hurricane Wilma looms in the Gulf of Mexico with a trajectory taking it into the western portions of Florida, I think the following discussion warrants consideration. In lieu of the fact that just in the last year, Florida was sent virtually staggering as 3 ferocious storms sequentially hammered the state over the course of a summer. Inexplicably, with what seemed to be the devil's hand, the storms zeroed in on portions of the state previously unaffected, leaving in their wake a breadth of destruction spanning from the panhandle to the beaches of Miami.

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?

Reconciliation

2005-10-20T05:00:00.000-07:00

Forgive me for not being to ascertain exactly where our analysis of what is proper in the public forum. I cannot reconcile how the American Civil Liberties Union justifies itself when they are involved with such positions.

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

2005-10-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

Cao at Cao's Blog tagged me with a 'meme,' stemming from Kit's post at Euphoric Reality.

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
Donkey Stomp
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
Euphoric Reality
Cao's Blog
Publius Rendezvous

Disdain Spain

2005-10-19T10:00:00.000-07:00

"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 the
tank crew."

The 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

2005-10-18T21:00:00.000-07:00

Forgive your humble pundit for being quite skeptical of rhetoric such as this coming from the Bush Administration,

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."

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?

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?

2005-10-18T20:30:00.000-07:00

Is this scenario really plausible? In case you missed the fuss,

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."

Going Once, Going Twice....

2005-10-17T10:00:00.000-07:00

An editorial this morning espouses what your humble pundit has been pondering throughout the saga of the Miers nominations. Currently, we are in the middle of a storm; essentially in the eye of a hurricane waiting for the back-end of the storm to rage. Yet, with the second half looming, what has blown passed most in the conservative base and those on the left is this: conservatives are not tearing themselves apart. Some throughout the conservative ranks would have us believe this dissent is causing a rift that will do nothing but split further unless everyone learns to tow the line mandated by President Bush. This could not be further from the truth; and, it is somewhat dangerous that some within the conservative base would feel this way. We are demanding better from our leaders. As Rush Limbaugh's editorial opines,

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...
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."

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...

Lack of Faith

2005-10-17T05:00:00.000-07:00

It is somewhat disturbing to see the two faces of the Mainstream Media ("MSM"). America is supposed to accept their reporting as objective and trust them to report the news important to our daily lives. Unfortunately, as this past week illustrates, the MSM should be held to a higher standard for their actions show, more and more, a pattern of marked by agendas and special interest. Just in the past week, with an air of self-righteousness, the MSM lashed out at President Bush for his alleged staged press conference. As was noted here by your humble pundit, and in countless other sites throughtout the blogosphere, their hypocrisy was exposed.

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.

"Cursed Unbeliever"

2005-10-16T12:32:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of The Right Track, your humble pundit has learned that he is a "cursed unbeliever" and his life could be in mortal peril. Lest these savages win the battle, rest assured that I shall remain vigilant amidst these cowardly threats.

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!

2005-10-15T06:00:00.000-07:00

This is the FIFTH edition of the best the blogosphere had to offer in the week that was October 7, - October 15, 2005. Lest I forget, if you have a story from this past week that you feel deserves more attention, let your humble pundit and my readers know about it.

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

2005-10-14T09:00:00.000-07:00

"Algore finally pulls the stick out of his butt!"

(Courtesy of Ken Bingham @ Oblogatory Anecdotes)

Hypocritical Controversies

2005-10-14T05:00:00.000-07:00

It is sometimes unfathomable what is construed as a controversy in the MSM ("Mainstream Media"), particularly when such poisonous darts are lobbed at President Bush. It seems as though with each passing controversy, there is an attempt to out-do the last controversy with a story that is that much more asinine than the preceding mythical wrong committed by this President. Much ado about nothing has been made about this alleged 'staging' of a press conference yesterday. President Bush allegedly 'staged' this press conference with troops in Iraq. This morning Michelle Malkin sheds a little light on the situation and brings us some much needed sanity to this discourse engulfing the news.

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

2005-10-13T05:30:00.000-07:00

It happens somewhere in America almost everyday. Some small school, city counsel or County Courthouse gets sued. Perhaps your town has a historical monument to honor the dead from WWII that just so happens to be shaped like a cross. Or maybe your child's school will be having a winter break instead of Christmas this year. Whatever it is, don't fool yourself...it could happen to your town. And what will happen when it does? What will happen when the ACLU comes into your backyard? Will your town stand up for its religious liberties, or fold? The ACLU will go full force and has plenty of money to back it up. Does your town have the funds to defend itself? The ACLU has the backing of huge liberal groups, funded to the tee. How doe your town stack up?

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

$156,960 Nebraska

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

2005-10-12T09:30:00.000-07:00

Captain's Quarters provides us with an excellent discussion which summarizes what your humble pundit feels has become the core concern conservatives have in their concerns pertaining to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

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.'
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.

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,

'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

Same Shoe Different Foot

2005-10-11T05:00:00.000-07:00

Tennessee Rep. Stacy Campfield may seem an unlikely candidate for his state's black caucus. But the white Republican said he wants to join the group to serve a segment of his constituency better. But Campfield's membership to the caucus was rejected and the state representative says it's because of the color of his skin. [emphasis added]

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.

Connecting Dots: Oklahoma Univesity, Georgia Tech...

2005-10-10T17:00:00.000-07:00

Is there an underlying pattern to be gleamed from these two incidents or are they just merely two isolated instances? From what has been pieced together thus far, there is no underlying nexus linking these seemingly individual incidents, as yet. Here, as was the same a couple of Saturdays ago, not much has been made of this incident. In case one my readers missed the news from this afternoon, today (via Reganites Unite! & Donkey Stomp) several bombs were discovered on the campus of Georgia Tech University in Atlanta.

How many instances does it take for a trend to emerge? As Myopic Zeal discusses, a bomb was discovered on the campus of UCLA. It remains to be seen if even the Oklahoma University episode was indeed a terrorist act, but with what transpired today, more questions should be asked in such an odd set of circumstances. As your humble discussed this past Saturday, not much has been made of the peculiar surroundings of the alleged suicide of an Oklahoma University student. Unfortunately, it has, at least in this situation, become apparent that Americans cannot rely on the MSM to report the news when it pertains to these matters. As Oblogatory Anecdotes highlights in a recent post, the closest they have come to even dignifying this matter has been to acknowledge they are not dignifying the matter.

In these times that we live, complacency cannot be our modus operandi.

Professor Bainbridge - 'Campus Bombs' Conservative Outpost - 'More Jihad at Home?' Mudville Gazette - 'Terrorist Bombs...' Stop the Bleating - 'Happy Ramadan, from Osama?' The Political Teen - 'Three Explosives Found Near Georgia Tech Dorms' SerandEz - 'Bombs in Georgia' Sister Toldjah - 'Terrorist attack on Ga. Tech campus' The Bizz Blog - 'Terrorist act at Georgia Tech.' The Strata-Sphere - 'Terrorist After Our Children' As I Please - 'Only Islamic Nutters Know About Bombs' Basil's Blog - 'Supper 10/10/2005' Media Lies - 'I asked the other day...' The Jawa Report - 'Terrorism at Georgia Tech (UPDATED)'

Status Quo

2005-10-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

Why has there been such consternation from the right over the nomination Harriet Miers? As GOP Bloggers and The Opinion Journal illustrate, the 'stakes are high.' As you observe some of the defenses of Miers amongst those in the blogosphere and elsewhere, please keep these 'defenses' in mind as well,

[E]very Republican president over the past half century has stumbled when it comes to naming nominees to the high court. Consider the record:

After leaving office, Dwight Eisenhower was asked by a reporter if he had made any mistakes as president. "Two," Ike replied. "They are both on the Supreme Court." He referred to Earl Warren and William Brennan, both of whom became liberal icons.

Richard Nixon personally assured conservatives that Harry Blackmun would vote the same way as his childhood friend, Warren Burger. Within four years, Justice Blackmun had spun Roe v. Wade out of whole constitutional cloth. Chief Justice Burger concurred in Roe, and made clear he didn't even understand what the court was deciding: "Plainly," he wrote, "the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."

Gerald Ford personally told members of his staff that John Paul Stevens was "a good Republican, and would vote like one." Justice Stevens has since become the leader of the court's liberal wing...

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation recalls the hard sell the Reagan White House made on behalf of Anthony Kennedy in 1987, after the Senate rejected Robert Bork. "They even put his priest on the phone with us to assure us he was solid on everything," Mr. Weyrich recalls. From term limits to abortion to the juvenile death penalty to the overturning of a state referendum on gay rights, Justice Kennedy has often disappointed conservatives.

Most famously, White House chief of staff John Sununu told Pat McGuigan, an aide to Mr. Weyrich, that the appointment of David Souter in 1990 would please conservatives. "This is a home run, and the ball is still ascending. In fact, it's just about to leave earth orbit," he told Mr. McGuigan. At the press conference announcing the appointment, the elder President Bush asserted five times that Justice Souter was "committed to interpreting, not making the law." The rest is history.

Governor Roy Moore[?]

2005-10-08T14:40:00.000-07:00

"Have we become so ignorant of our nation's history that we have forgotten the reason for the adoption of the Bill of Rights? It was meant to restrict the federal government's power over the states, not to restrict the states from doing what the federal government can do. The time has come to recover the valiant courage of our forefathers, who understood that faith and freedom are inseparable and that they are worth fighting for " Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

Recently, former Chief Justice Roy Moore announced he will be seeking the gubernatorial nomination for the state of Alabama in the upcoming Republican primary. For many Americans, just the utterance of this man's name causes many to roll their eyes and callously turtheirri attention to other matters. Any defense of this man and his actions of a couple of years ago, wherein his decision to maintain a 10 Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery, AL against the orders of the federal government, is all enough to have anyonchastiseze him for this 'religious zealotry.'

Yet, what this action illustrates and what most of us do not realize is that there is an undercurrent that should be heeded by manpoliticiansns and, specifically, Republicans. This gubernatorial run should be construed as a shot across the bow that many in the Republican Party base are quite ill with the current leadership. Many, in what is construed as the 'mainstream,' ignore this segment of the baselabelingng it as the 'religious right' or any other assorted number of names. This announcement should be eerie reckoning for the Republican 'establishment' since it demonstrates that there are a significant number of their constituents in their base who grow wary of the non-existent progress in matters oimportancece. Whether fair or not, many Republican constituents have grown ill in what seems to be ongoing efforts tassuagege the politically correct idealogues of Washington, D.C. and the MSM, and this permeates down to the state level as well.

Though your humble pundit does not necessarily agree with the actions taken by Chief Justice Moore in disregarding a federal court order. Chief Justice Moore's stance was courageous in the sense that Americans rarely see such convictions for one's own personal beliefs on display; particularly from one so intimate with political and judicial convictions. It should be evaluated from a neutral standpoint pertaining to whether one agreed or disagreed with hiconvictionon for our leaders rarely show such conviction to the point of allowing it to affect their political liability. Personally, Chief Justice Moore would have been more effective in garnering support if he would have simply resigned from office to continue his campaign, yet this argument is moot at this juncture. Chief Justice Moore's convictions in resisting the likes of the ACLU in reaffirming what are our fundamental tents as a nation were awe inspiring.

Thus, this perception is what comes full-circle and will plague the Republican establishment as the this 2006 election cycle looms on the horizon. It is not merely just the 'religious-right' who hold these principles, but many 'mainstream' conservatives and moderates hold some of these principles as their core values. Many Republicans have unfortunatelsignaleded in one way or another that these values are not worth the struggle. Countless instances oinaptitudede or plain cowardice can be gleamed from recently transpired events.

For instance, it could be construed that President Bush's two nominees for the Supreme Court, with their non-existent paper trail and jurisprudential record, could be a sign that President Bush was timid ipromotingng conservative ideals. Many stalwart conservatives have savagely berated these candidates with a great deal of veracity,

There are today third-generation conservatives who have bravely defended their beliefs in hostile law schools, clerked for Supreme Court justices, paid their dues in the White House or the Department of Justice, joined the Federalist Society, advanced by excellence and merit to federal judgeships. The message of the Miers appointment to this generation is: You made a mistake. You left a paper trail. Is this the message we want to send to the next generation: Don't let anybody know where you stand on gay rights, affirmative action, or Roe v. Wade? Is this what the conservatism has come to? By the standard of no paper trail, we would never have nominated Scalia or Bork, or Ronald Reagan, who, with his thousands of radio and TV commentaries, had the longest paper trail in American history.

But, in fairness, it must be highlighted that there are those within the Republican ranks who are not willing to blindly follow this President on such matters,

Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, considered a potential presidential candidate, said that "people who I have a great deal of admiration for" had said they were "disappointed or deflated" by the choice. "I want to be assured that she is not going to be another Souter," Mr. Allen said, referring to Justice David H. Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee who has upheld abortion rights and other liberal precedents. "I understand the president knows her well, but I don't."

With such to ponder, this announcement in the last couple of weeks by Chief Justice Moore will be quite intriguing to see unfold over the course of this election cycle. Will the establishment heed this rising tide of discontent or will they remain idle? If Chief Justice Moore were to appeal to the citizens of Alabama, could this be the signal for an emerging trend?

The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy - 'Anti-ACLU Judge Running For Governor of Alabama' Stop the ACLU - Roy Moore For Governor of Alabama

Suicide [Bomber]?

2005-10-08T05:00:00.000-07:00

As you may or, may not know, which is the most likely proposition, an Oklahoma Univesity student blew himself up during a home football game last weekend. With tens of thousands of cheering spectators mere yards away inside the stadium, this student blew himself up in what was reported as an apparent suicide. Thankfully, the solitary victim was the individual that detonated the device, and no innocent bystanders were injured from the blast.

What has completely left your humble pundit dumbstruck is the apparent lack of concern being shown by the MSM as more of this story unfolds before our eyes. I, myself, did not learn of this incident until later on during the day, but even so I learned of the story in passing from reading ESPN.com. One would think that this would be an alarming story warranting the MSM to bring it to our national attention. In this time of vigilence in a post-9/11 world, it would be in or all of our own best interest to know of such incidents, whether they be mere suicides or suicide bombers.

Why is that I mention 'suicide bomber?' This is but another aspect of this story that befuddles your himble pundit. If it were left to the MSM, then the average person would have nothing more than to think that this individual was a depressed college student in some tragic story. Yet, what is eerie is the fact that with more information creeping into the blogosphere, what the MSM is ignoring is a downright dangerous prospect. As is being reported by Oblogatory Anecdotes,

"'It appears that HINRICHS ('the bomber') was part of a larger plan that included members of an Islamic terrorist cell based in and around the Norman and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma area. As a Caucasian, it was much easier for him to obtain the materials needed to create a large bomb, act in concert with members of the local terrorist cell, and strike when relative calm was the word of the day,' stated this source. SIC"

When pieces begin to fall into their repsective places, the broader picture of what may be at stake becomes that much more clear, again, as Oblogatory Anecdotes reports,

If he didn’t act alone then who are his accomplices. An interview on the local Eyewitness News Channel 5 may yield possible answer. Ashraf Hussein, the president of OU's Muslim Student Association is denying that Hinrichs was even a Muslim and that he never attended the local mosque. This is contrary to eyewitness that place Hinrichs at the mosque. Is Ashraf Hussein trying to cover for Hinrichs? Does He know something? It looks like Ashraf Hussein is someone to be watched.

Michelle Malkin (Hat Tip: Donkey Stomp) has also chronicled his numerous ties to shady groups with questionable interests. His role and imporatnace to any potential terrorist organization would come together with what JunkYardBlog reports. Herein, the proximity of his apartment in correlation with the stadium is discussed,

[I]t's interesting that Hinrichs' apartment lay at one end of a reasonable route to the stadium that also includes the only mosque in Norman. He apparently spent a lot of time at that mosque, according to a NewsOK report. And it's interesting that Gate 6 of Memorial Stadium is on the side of the blast site. It's at that gate that someone tried to enter but fled when security asked to search his backpack. Gate 6 is on the opposite of the stadium from Hinrichs' apartment, so it's not the most obvious gate he would use if suicide were his only motive. If he had a ticket that placed his seat on that side of the stadium, and wanted to get that bomb inside, it makes more sense.

As an American, it is personally gratifying that this information can be readily obtained from our fellow Americans throughout the blogosphere. Piecing together this information from various sources of media has painted a broader picture throughout the week. What is just plain frightening is that the story has not even been given the attention it deserves. If a caucasian was seduced to Islamofascism, then this news is a story America needs to be told. Even if the MSM is not doing there job for whatever number of assorted reasons that can be conjured, it is good to see the blogosphere is keeping track of such actions happening on our own soil.

Thankfully, it seems as though our government is at work as well on this , as Reaganites Unite! reports,

"'The warrant used to execute a search of Oklahoma University bomber Joel 'Henry' Hinrichs III's apartment, where an undetermined amount of explosives were found, has been sealed by a federal court at the request of the Justice Department. Bob Troester, first assistance U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, said the department requested the warrant be sealed, but declined to elaborate when asked why it was necessary to do so given previous media reports that a depressed Hinrichs acted alone and on a whim. 'You can draw whatever assumption you like," he said. "We don't comment on any sealed indictments.'"

CAPTION THIS!

2005-10-07T03:00:00.000-07:00

To recognize the re-emergence of everyone's favorite ex-Vice-President into the mainstream news this week, I could not go with recognizing Mr. Gore as the butt of this this week's installment of 'CAPTION THIS!' Readers should know the rules by now, but in case you do not, they are quite simple. With this photograph, you simply provide a "caption" in the comments section and I will gleam the best at the end of the day to post under the actual photograph. Happy Caption-ing!

In a short side note, if you have actually heard or read the text from his speech, "Our Democracy Has Been Hollowed Out," did he not just sound odd (even for Gore)?

All Under A False Banner

2005-10-06T04:00:00.000-07:00

The sheer amount of hypocrisy tolerated throughout America in nothing short of inexplicable. Particularly, with what is to be construed inside our 'mainstream' and outside of the 'mainstream,' the level of tolerance we as citizens are told to endure and sacrifice cannot be reconciled.

I think it is safe to assume the American Civil Liberties Union has relentlessly sought the removal of every morsel of America's Christian heritage from any public forum; under the false pretense that their dogma is somehow constitutional in nature. What would be preposterous to our forefathers at the time they drafted our constitution is now thrust upon us by the ACLU and its progeny. This banner of false pretenses, that there must be a "separation of church and state" is somehow derived out of what is the actual the verbiage, "Congress shall make no law respecting..." is intellectually dishonest and, frankly disingenuous. This false banner has been waved so much in our 'mainstream' that is often misconstrued that this is the actual language of our constitution.

We, as Americans, allow ourselves to be subverted from an enemy from within. These are not the barbarians at the gates, it is our own complacency which is allowing a hollowing of our own heritage to take place as we sit as idle spectators. The subversion of our history is transpiring before us and being replaced by that which groups such as the ACLU wish.

Though God, and any resemblance of our heritage is somehow dastardly according to these groups, the ACLU publicly endorses a moral viewpoint for our children to learn. This, undeniably seen recently in Massachusetts as

[r]reports recently surfaced that Estabrook School mandated that all kindergarteners read "Who's in a Family," a picture book that endorses the controversial topic of gay marriage, and invited gay parents to come into class to talk to the young children about the topic. The story came to light when David and Tonia Parker -- two parents who ironically support gay marriage but do not want their son exposed to the topic -- sought and failed to get their child exempted from the controversial curriculum. Their protests have not only fallen on deaf ears, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts has intoned that it supports the school's decision to have five-year-olds learn about homosexuality over their parents' objections.

Can this be reconciled? In one instance, our Christian heritage cannot be acknowledged, thus, according to the ACLU, we must endure some form of a hollow existence wherein we deny our history. But, on the other hand, it is completely fine for this school to engage in moral lessons of what children should and should not tolerate. Without a doubt, such advocacy for a lifestyle is a social indoctrination of our children. These arguments may be of a different stripe, but a taking away and replacement of our moral code is transpiring before our own eyes.

What is the rationale behind such? Where do the community standards come into play? Are they too subjective for the ACLU for religion, but not for what should be socially tolerated? The ACLU's mantra mandates that community standards of our Christian heritage shall not be imposed, yet, here, the ACLU specifically advocates for this social experiment in elementary classrooms.

This is yet another blatant example of how the ACLU is not to be construed as a neutral advocate for the liberties of any American. The ACLU is a transparent special interest group taking on cases for its own agenda. Though, Americans are finally beginning to realize what is being waged against them. It is always encouraging to see the victories against the ACLU's agenda. Recently Oboglatory Anecdotes reported,

After that peace and serenity came back to Temple Square and the Main Street Plaza. Of course the ACLU can't have that so they sued to block the sale of the easement. Yesterday the same court of appeals that ruled against the Church handed down aunanimouss ruling supporting the Churches position. The Church, decency, and order prevailed. The ACLU lost. Undoubtedly the ACLU will find other ways to sue, but at least for now there is no more bullhorns, no more verbally abusing new brides. Just peace and serenity, just the way the Church intended.

Americans must seize upon these instances and realize that these are not solitary instances affecting only certain individuals of certain communities. It must be realized that every victory and defeat is but a battle in a war for the moral fiber of America. We must take the good and the bad, and learn from both. We must not sit complacent as our heritage is replaced by another ideology.

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 maling list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

In This Day & Age?!

2005-10-05T16:00:00.000-07:00

FOXnews is reporting (Hat Tip: StoptheACLU) this hour that

[a]n FBI intelligence analyst charged last month for passing classified information about Filipino leaders to current and former officials of that nation retrieved the information from the White House, FOX News has confirmed.
Originally reported by ABC News, FBI and CIA officials are saying this is the first case of espionage from within the White House in modern times.
The alleged spy, Leandro Aragoncillo, worked undetected for nearly three years. He was most recently assigned to work with Vice President Dick Cheney.

This news is nothing short of extraordinary, and it is quite disturbing an infiltration of this magnitude could occur during our Global War on Terror. It begs the question, what would the ramifications be if it were a mole placed by a member of al-Qaeda? From what is known at this moment, it seems to fall only within the Philipino sphere of influence,

On Sept. 12, it was reported that the former FBI analyst, who was stationed at Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, has been sending classified information since January, according to an FBI complaint.
Investigators found that between May and August Aragoncillo printed or downloaded 101 classified documents relating to the Philippines, of which 37 were classified "Secret," the
complaint said.

Extensive coverage (including video & pictures) can be found at The Political Teen.
PunditGuy provides us with revealing background information.
Michelle Malkin relates how liberals are already treating this in a flippant manner.
The Political Pit Bull is also reporting.

Coalition of the Chillin'

2005-10-04T18:30:00.000-07:00

As your humble pundit made mention earlier today, we should refrain from rushing to a conclusion on President Bush's nominee. President Bush has nominated a person for whom he thinks will do the best in her abilities to fulfill those duties as an Associate Justice. President Bush deserves our trust and adoration on many accounts. True, he has let the conservative base down on numerous occasions, but his heart and intentions have always been in the right place. I, your humble pundit, nearly swallowed the poison pill in joining the vitriolic mass of consternation that swept the blogosphere Tuesday. Make no mistake, I still have my reservations about the Harriet Miers, but I am not ready to "give up" because I think President Bush is somehow "weak" in this decision making process. Like most Americans, I do not know who she is, but I do know my President.
Conservatives have been battling for the soul of this Court since before I was born. And, President Bush is no fool for he, too, has endured with all of us in this constant fight against this last bastion of liberalism. President Bush has continuously expressed his desire to nominate those in the likeness of some of the Court's most stalwart conservatives, and, it is with such, that I will patiently wait to see who this woman truly is. We only have seen glimpses and snippets of her. Undoubtedly, President Bush, these past 5 years has our best wishes at heart through numerous times of toil and triumph. What should change our minds now?

The "Coalition of the Chillin'" is meant to be an expression of patience. It is not an endorsement of any kind for Harriet Miers, which means anyone is free to retract any support for this nominee. Plain and simply, this collection of bloggers is a means through which everyone participating is planning to keep a calm, even keel throughout this process in a show of solidarity. We as a group plan to ascertain the surroundings and goings on before coming to any conclusions.

Tip of the Hat: StoptheACLU

Piranhas in a Teapot

2005-10-04T03:05:00.000-07:00

I find it dismally intriguing how the right is cannibalizing itself over the nomination of Harriet Miers. At this point in time, whether she is an originalist, textualist, activists or any other assorted '-ists,' everyone should just take a moment to calm down before this already open wound gashes open further.

Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law & Justice, endorsed Harriet Miers. As does StoptheACLU, your humble pundit has a great deal of respect and adoration for this individual,

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law said today that Harriet Miers, the nominee named by President Bush for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, is an excellent choice who represents the conservative mainstream of judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.
“Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O’Connor,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term. “At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O’Connor is critical. Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination.”
Sekulow added: “We look forward to a speedy confirmation process and will work aggressively to ensure that Harriet Miers gets full and fair consideration before the Senate. We call on members of the Senate to reject the partisan political rhetoric and focus on the judicial philosophy of this conservative manominee nominee.” Sekulow said the ACLJ will begin mobilizing a national campaign to ensure that Miers is confirmed. Sekulow said he will generate support for the nominee through his daily radio broadcast that reaches 1.5 million listeners, through his weekly television show, by using direct mail, phone calls, and emails to a list approaching one million supporters. “We know the intentions of the liberal left – to do anything possible to derail this nominee,” said Sekulow. “We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court."

Yet, with statements such as the ones uttered conservative stalwarts such as Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry and Mark Levin, the decision does not seem like one we should share confidence in. Here, individuals of the same stripe and creed stand firmly in opposition. The piece written by Bill Kristol yesterday seems illustrative of much of the grief shared by numerous conservatives stemming from the unknown,

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are
demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?

Undoubtedly, this confusion has stirred about a great deal of consternation amongst the right side of the aisle. But, what should be gleamed is how this dichotomy has illustrated that we must all be patient throughout this process. Let us not rush to conclusions on this matter. In the end, we must trust President Bush, not In blind faitadaget in the adage of a great man, "trust, but verify."

Stop the ACLU - "Coalition of the Chillin'"

David Limbaugh - 'Disappointed, But Still Hopeful' Euphoric Reality - 'Quitcherbitchin' Oblogatory Anecdotes - 'A House Divided Cannot Stand, Take Heart The Battle Will Be Won!' Hugh Hewitt - 'Do You Trust Them' Michelle Malkin - 'Miers and The Morning After' Stuck on Stupid - 'Miers' Criers: Who Is She?' California Conservative - 'Memo To Conservatives: We Are Helping The Other Side. Pass It On' BlogsforBush - 'Coalition of the Chilln' Pirates' Cove - 'Just A Chillin' Iowa Voice - 'More Thoughts on Harriet Miers' Mike's America - 'Right Wingers Become Right Whiners! I'd Rather be a Right WINNER!' The Moderate Voice - 'Harriet Miers: The wrong choice for the Supreme Court' Right Field - 'I Give Up' Southern Appeal - 'I am done with President Bush' La Shawn Barber's Corner - 'Who is Harriet Miers?' Flopping Aces - 'The Miers Nomination' Rhymes With Right - 'The Miers Nomination'

Harriet Who?

2005-10-03T06:00:00.000-07:00

As you well know, President Bush announced White House Counsel Harriet Miers this morning as his selection to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The reaction to this candidate in the early Monday hours has been nothing more than dismal. It is almost as if there were a collective groan emanating from the right side of the blogosphere.

At this juncture, what do we know of this candidate? A biography is located at here and it does not illustrate much in what Bush's constituents deserve to know.

March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size.
Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where
Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.
Ms. Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.
Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.
In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas.

This excerpt is indicative to what most of the biographies circulating the blogosphere indicate. Her beliefs remain a mystery. There is nothing within these excerpts to begin gleaming. It cannot be iterated enough how disappointing such a nominee is in lieu of the fact that this position to be filled is the crucial 'swing' position vacated by Associate Justice O'Connor. As alluded to before, the collective grown stems from the fact that conservatives, though consistent winners at the voting booths, have bee perpetually disappointed with these gains being decimated in the courts. Why does President Bush take such a chance with a mystery?

As David Frum of NRO stated, President Bush seems to be the ultimate loyalist,

This is no time for the president to indulge his loyalty to his friends. All this year, the president has been testing the limits of his support. Well we are at the limit now, and anything less than a superb choice for the O'Connor vacancy will overstep it.

As a staunch loyalist, how does President Bush rectify that she donated money to Vice-President Gore's campaign in 2000? Do the accusations of 'cronyism,' stemming from the Democrats, and now conservative pundits such as the JunkYardBlog, warrant merit at this point in time? As a respected colleague noted, I wish the campaign contribution to Gore were just a figment of my imagination.

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.

Can Miers be considered in the same breath with Justice Scalia? Justice Thomas? This is the litmus test conservatives should heed as we move forward in the coming weeks. President Bush promised us such, and anything less than this standard he set is gravely unacceptable. Let us hope and pray that the groan was for naught.

Though, one item we can all rely upon is stated by StoptheACLU,

[S]he sounds qualified for the job. I think there could have been a better pick. I'm not thrilled, but will have to do more study. It should satisfy some circles that hoped for another female on the court. One thing is for sure, it does not matter who Bush has picked, I predict the donkeys to do their usual sky is falling dance.

CALIFORNIA YANKEE - 'Early Reaction to Miers Negative' The M. Sheldon Show - 'Harriet Miers!' Sister Toldjah - 'Hold on to your hats' Michelle Malkin - 'UTTERLY UNDERWHELMED' Wizbang! - 'Bush Picks Harriet Miers For Supreme Court' The Art of the Blog - 'SCOTUS Watch: Harriet Miers Nominated' The Blue State Conservatives - 'Bush Picks Harriet Miers. Conservative Blogosphere Apoplectic' Mangled Cat - 'The Sigh Heard 'Round The Blogosphere' Oblogatory Anecdotes - 'Shrewd SCOTUS Nominee or The Ultimate in Patronage Politics?' Outside the Beltway - 'Harriet Miers Nominee for Supreme Court' The Colossus - 'Stealth Nominee' Ace of Spades - 'SCOTUS Pick Open Thread' The Volokh Conspiracy - 'It's Miers' Captain's Quarters - 'Harriet Miers Gets The Nod' The Heritek - 'BUSH GONE WILD' Single Malt Pundit - 'Bush Blows It' The Curt Jester - 'Having Your Court and Edit Too' ProLifeBlogs - 'Bush Picks Stealth Candidate for the Supreme Court' Weapon of Mass Distraction - 'Bush Nominates His Attorney for Supreme Court' Right Wing News - 'Disaster, Thy Name Is Harriet Miers' Conservative Outpost - 'Harriet Miers' Law Dork - 'No, Not That Exodus Ministries' Uncorrelated - 'Harriet Miers Gets the Nod' info theory - 'The Case Against Harriet Miers' Right Field - 'Weekend Thoughts (2nd edition)' Confederate Yankee - 'Bush a Uniter, not a Divider for Second SCOTUS Pick' Reaganites Unite! - 'Bush Picks Harriet Miers for SCOTUS' The Moderate Voice - 'Bush's Legal "Pit Bull" Miers Picked For Supreme Court' A North American Patriot - 'Who the heck is Harriet Miers?' All Things Beautiful - 'Consigliere Harriet Miers' Donkey Stomp - 'Torn on Hariet Miers' Zaphriel's Blog - 'Shrewd Move'

Et tu, President Bush?

2005-10-03T04:00:00.000-07:00

In utter defiance of any abject sense of logic

[a] federal District Court Judge has ruled that the privacy rights of illegal aliens convicted of heinous crimes in this country are more important than the public's right to know if the government is properly enforcing a key immigration law.

It boggles one's mind the mental gymnasticss needed to construe logic with this ruling. It cannot be denied that there are certain inalienable rights that Americans should and must enjoy, yet this onus is delineated from coherent rules of law. It is with such expectations that a dichotomy is exposed, how can a non-citizen in opposition to the rule of law be afforded more protection under these laws than that of a lawful citizen of this nation?

Do not misconstrue the statements herein, for this piece is not meant in the least to advocate on behalf of criminals and any privacy rights they may be construed to have, this piece is meant to cast light on the inexplicable, which was iterated in the accompanying editorial:

How can somebody who is not even a U.S. citizen have rights that outweigh the most fundamental right of every American to know if the government is enforcing the law properly? Criminal records are public documents in every state. Many states publish the names and addresses of sex offenders. But facts about murderers, rapists and thieves who aren't citizens can't be published?[!]

Yet, with how preposterous the aforementioned statements are, what is even more incredible comes from wh endoroses such rationale!

Amazing as the ruling itself may be, what is even more stunning is the fact that U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard J. Leon was affirming the Bush administration's position in the case. President Bush nominated Leon in 2001 and the Senate confirmed him in February 2002.

It is no earth-shattering news that the Bush Administration panders to the Latino bloc in a transparent effort to solidify that cross-section of our population for Republicanican efforts. Needless to say, this shallow compromise of basic principles is egregious on separate levels:

First, this pandering undermines the principles of the conservative ideology; for the lengths through which the administration take undercut the thrust that an idea should be enough to draw individuals into the fold. By incessantly pandering through these trivial means, the Bush Administration takes the wind from the sails of any and all progress made by the Republican Party spurred by the efforts of conservatives everywhere.

Next, and in this era of American History, the prominent reasoning illuminating the fallacy of this strategy would be a strong basis for our ongoing national security concerns. As the editorial notes,

There are also concerns that there could be sleeper-cell terrorists among those released who came here in recent years and were subsequently convicted of crimes as they awaited orders to carry out their deadly plans.

With such, any efforts by the Bush Administration to assuage our fears are compromised. Any rhetoric by this Administration now carries a shadow of doubt. No cohesive, cogent statement has been uttered to your humble pundit's knowledge that has been able to plausibly reconcile this careless illegal immigration policy with that of our ever pending national security concerns.

With such grave and blatant political panderings by a leader in our trust, it is demanded that citizens such as you and I, mattering not if we fall to the left or the right, must demand that the rule of law be upheld. The revelations of this editorial reveal something this is afoot beyond that which we previously thought. Not only are there criminals amongst us, these criminal are now being protected by those we should be able to trust.

It is long since time that we Americans should hold these leaders accountable for their abdication of authority. Let us do something before it is too late....

This has been part of the Guard the Borders blogburst. 'GTB' hits Euphoric Reality every Monday, and seeks to promote awareness about the illegal immigration epidemic that our country is facing and the desperate need to curb the problem before it's too late. If you'd like to join the blogburst, send an email to kit.jarrell@gmail.com with your blog's name and URL.

What Is Good For The Goose....

2005-10-02T19:00:00.000-07:00

"The latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people." - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.)

Two political action committees linked to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been charged with attempting to circumvent to legal limits on campaign giving, the Federal Election Commission has ruled.
According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.

As reported by GOPbloggers, this 'culture of corruption' must run rampant throughout the entire House of Representatives.

The money that led to the indictment this week of two Las Vegas pastors and the wife of one of them came from federal grants arranged by Sen. Harry Reid in September 2001, a Reid spokeswoman said Wednesday.
Moving to distance Reid from a possible scandal, aide Tessa Hafen said the senator sought the money on behalf of a nonprofit social services agency and not for the churches or persons who have been accused of mishandling the money.

Or, does it include the Senate, as well. Why are these stories not garnering as much air time and print as the Tom DeLay fiasco?

Saturday Synopsis (4th ed.)

2005-10-01T04:30:00.000-07:00

This is the FOURTH edition of the best the blogosphere had to offer in the week that was September 25 - October 1, 2005:

When is enough, actually enough? You must read for yourself what Michelle Malkin has uncovered in The "FDNY's Muslim Moonbat."
Liberal Hypocrisy: As The Art of the Blog notes, liberals have no shame in their utter hypocrisy, they have no core beliefs. Christianity is to have NO place whatsoever in our public aura, children are not allowed to pray at their own high school graduations, "under God" is to be construed as somehow coercive, BUT if God can be invoked to 'get' Tom Delay, then the ENDS are justified by those MEANS!
The arrogance of some of our former allies is outstanding. NewsMax has reported that, "The European Union insisted Friday that governments and the private sector must share the responsibility of overseeing the Internet, setting the stage for a showdown with the United States on the future of Internet governance." Your humble pundit is thankful that other bloggers such as Red State Rant and The Violence Worker are not intimidated by the hardline stance the EU is taking on this issue. Is it not comical when the Europeans use such rhetoric as "The EU ... is very firm on this position," he added.
Bill Bennett's comments were dastardly......when taken out of context. The Donkey Stomp has the full text from his radio program. One should ascertain the entire landscape before coming to a conclusion. It is utterly shameless that there are such political hacks that will tread so close to out-in-out lies to taint the reputation of others. Yet, when those on the left cannot offer any cognitive message to the American people, it is somewhat easy to grasp why they resort to such theatrics.
On a lighter note, SportsHaven has his predictions for this weekend pertaining to some of the bigger college football games. If your team does not have a posted prediction, ask him next week for 'TheTruth.'

CAPTION THIS!

2005-09-30T04:00:00.000-07:00

Since last week's installment was so popular, I would like to give you, my audience, the oppurtunity to 'caption' this photo in the 'comments' section. At the end of the day I will decide the who submitted the most fitting caption and place it on the post for all who stop by Publius Rendezvous to observe.

'Ends' Justifying Whatever 'Means' Necessary

2005-09-29T11:00:00.000-07:00

It seems as though that our friends on the left side of the aisle will stop at nothing to utterly destroy our Republican leaders through any means they deem necessary necessary. As you very well may know, Tom Delay had a "one count of criminal conspiracy" indictment handed down to him yesterday by a grand jury in Travis County, Texas. Curious as your humble pundit was about the matter, I began to seek more and more information attempting to gleam what was actually transpiring. My audience should take it for what they will, but it seems as though Mark Levin has hit the proverbial nail on the head with his notation on NRO's Corner,

Here's my first take on this indictment (I've only read the indictment and nothing more for now): The indictment is three pages in length. Other than a statement that "one or more" of 3 individuals, including Tom DeLay, entered into an illegal conspiracy, I can't find a single sentence tying Tom DeLay to a crime. That is, there's not a single sentence tying DeLay to the contribution. The indictment describes the alleged conduct of two other individuals, but nothing about DeLay. You would think if Ronnie Earle had even a thin reed of testimony linking DeLay to the contribution, it would have been noted in the indictment to justify the grand jury's action. Moreover, not only is there no information about DeLay committing acts in furtherance of a
conspiracy, there's no information about DeLay entering into a conspiracy. I honestly believe that unless there's more, this is an egregious abuse of prosecutorial power. It's a disgrace. I understand that not everything has to be contained in an indictment, but how about something!

Dare I speculate that many democrats and liberals do not even have an ounce of understanding to what is actually the 'goings on' surrounding this indictment? (If you have not seen the indictment, here it is) It the unfortunate reality of our lived that our leaders would cling to such meager scraps of political meat in launching a political attack with such brevity. Make no mistake, your humble pundit will be one of the first to chastise Delay if there is credence within this process, but as of this moment it seems as though this is much ado about nothing. As Delay himself said yesterday,

"This morning, in an act of blatant political partisanship, a rogue district attorney in Travis County, Texas, named Ronnie Earle charged me with one count of criminal conspiracy, a reckless charge wholly unsupported by the facts."

Other Bloggers discussing these matters:
Donkey Stomp Captain's Quarters The Political Teen Michelle Malkin Generation Why? GOP Bloggers Conservative Outpost Polipundit Sister Toldjah Reganites Unite! Junkyard Blog! This Blog Full of Crap Ace of Spades California Conservative The Creative Conservative The Moderate Voice Dean's World

ALL RISE!

2005-09-29T10:00:00.000-07:00

Judge John Roberts has just been confirmed as out 17th Chief Justice to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. In a vote that was more of a disparity than I thought it would be, Roberts was confirmed 78-22 by the Senate.

How could anyone vote against someone with such incredible credentials? Ask these 22 individuals why Judge John Roberts should not deserve to be confirmed:

-Akaka
-Bayh
-Biden
-Boxer
-Cantwell
-Clinton
-Corzine
-Dayton
-Durbin
-Feinstein
-Harkin
-Inouye
-Kennedy
-Kerry
-Lautenberg
-Mikulski
-Obama
-Reed
-Reid
-Sarbanes
-Schumer
-Stabenow

One need not have a great deal of intellectual insight to see what these individuals have in common. These were the democrats who demanded ridiculous standards be thrust upon Roberts due to the fact that he was nominated by President Bush. There is nothing extreme about this man and what his career has undoubtedly shown. It should not even be a subject for discussion, speaking of his political beliefs, this should not even be discussed as apart of the role of a judge. However, let us not dwell on the transparent partisan rancor of this small minority of senators. Judge John Roberts shall make a fine addition to the court based upon his disntinguished legal mind and proven capabilities in leadership.

As we move forward, President Bush is expected to announce a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat. Many expect that Judge John Roberts easily made it through his confirmation due to the fact that the democrats wanted to hedge their political capital with the O'Connor seat and whomever the nominee will be. This would make perfect sense in light of the fact that her seat has been a 'swing' vote for quite some time. With these thoughts in mind, as I was parusing through the confirmation news circulating about John Roberts, this quote caught my eye:

On Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Bush a letter urging him not to name to the court any of the three judges who were part of the compromise - Judge William J. Pryor Jr. and Judges Owen and Brown. "The nomination of any of these individuals to the Supreme Court would represent an unnecessary provocation and would be met by substantial opposition in the Senate," the letter said.

How can this be construed as an "unnecessary provocation?" Was this not the entire point of the "Great Compromise of 2005?" As many pundits and commentators stated, this is further illustration of just how disengenuous the democrats are in this process.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.

Boards already on board

Sheep in Wolf's Clothing

2005-09-28T06:00:00.000-07:00

Do these types of antics somehow bolster the cause of the radical left in there perpetual demagoguery of President Bush and our War on Terrorism? For just a fraction of a second, your humble pundit felt somewhat saddened for these misguided miscreants that their desperation has reached this crescendo.

As Donkey Stomp reports, those on the left have taken to impersonating those on the right in their efforts to swell their ranks against an assorted number of causes. Yet, it seems as though the War on Terror and anything that President Bush is for now is a rallying point. How many Republicans stoop as low to advocate their cause? Do they need to? I think the answer is somewhat obvious when a majority of Americans voted him back into office for a second term. It is somewhat pathetic that these tactics have now been invoked to somehow legitimize their promulgations and contentions.

As this past weekend has reminded us all, the lemmings following Cindy have come out from beneath their rocks, and are exposed for what they are:
The Jawa Report
California Conservative

(If there are additional resources pertaining to photographs from the peace march, I would be highly interested in knowing for I would like to link to them. If you would please e-mail me or leave the link in the comments, I will be glad to do so accordingly)

"Who Has Used Her Son's Death..."

2005-09-27T05:00:00.000-07:00

This is the first group blog of the Revolutionary Alliance. Written independently and posted simultaneously, they represent our thoughts on a matter of current interest. Other participants are:
-The Right Track
-The Right Field

As has been noted countless times, this woman has morphed into something despicable from what could have been a genuine display of emotion after the loss of her son. It is beyond any plausible reconciliation to construe her antics and shenanigans as anything but self-gratification. Her son's name, Casey Sheehan, who died in Iraq for the preservation of freedom throughout the world, will forever be linked, and thus mired by these selfish acts of his own flesh & blood.

Much has been made of this weekend's protest as these groups spear-headed by Cindy have descended upon Washington D.C.; yet we do not see the lemmings who follow her. They are mere apparitions mentioned, but inside the mainstream nothing is seen to be observed of these masses. Where are they? I postulate, along with others, that these masses do not exist to the extent portrayed. Though, all in all, she does have some within her ranks, propping up her transparent message and using her situation to promulgate their own selfish desires. This should be the true story for analysis; how this unfortunate situation has seduced the naive Cindy, creating her unfortunate disposition. As snippets from Michelle Malkin and The Moderate Voice illustrate, these voices are not as pure as what could be the message construed by Cindy had she not slipped head first down this slippery slope of fanaticism. As The Moderate Voice highlights,

The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party Ramsey Clark's core outfit is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along as well, they just tag along.

Now, with all intellectual honesty, as stories such as this illustrates, should we take the motivations by these groups in good faith as being pure and noble? Can we not speculate on Cindy's motivations when she aligns herself with such Anti-Americanistic efforts? It is a relationship of mutual expediency for both parties are selfishly using one another, for as The Creative Conservative notes,

"[U]nfortunatelyely, Cindy IS the mother of unthinking lemmings who don't care about anyone but themselves, wanting desperately to spread their anti-American socialist garbage any way they can. This protest only helps our enemies to kill more Americans and Iraqis by encouraging terror."

In countless sites your humble pundit frequents, this sentiment is clearly ascertained by many, and her message is not resonating in the least with those constituting the backbone of America. In such, the Democrats should be given credit for not directly pandering to such despicable antics by the fringe of our society. No prominent Democrat has been so bold as to embrace this effort or lend their political capital to afford any credence to Cindy's efforts.

Yet, as Mark Noonan notes,

So, there she was, Cindy Sheehan being arrested (as per her plan) at the White House yesterday...if you missed the photo, it is a real winner. It shows a smiling, happy Cindy Sheehan being carted away by the cops...smiling and happy. Doesn't exactly come across as grievinging mother"

But, this does not explain why she is given so much time in the media. Should much credence be given to the Democrats and those on the left side of the aisle? With such disingenuousous displays, should she not just slip into irrelevancy? Zaphriel's Blog speculates that

[i]t is a funny bit of mimicry that her handlers have produced here, trying with all their might to make it look as if there truly is a movement that in any way resembles the huge war protests from the Vietnam era. Scripted, bought, and sold on the evening news. Man does she know how to put on a show, even if everyone sees through the transparent venire.

Where is her thrust of popularity coming from? Who is lending her a proverbial ear? I would have thought her fifteen minutes had long since expired, but I have been consistently wrong. Someone or something is lending her credence for her to continue tirelessly with such utterly hopeless displays. Though, as we continue to be lambasted with her shenanigans day after day, let us all remember, in the end, the most tell-tale aspect to gleam from this is what MyWay stumbled upon:

"Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son's death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement...."

If you have a post of interest that you wish to promote, please go to Stop The ACLU and participate in the "Open Trackbacks."

"Theology Matters" (indeed)

2005-09-27T04:00:00.000-07:00

A regular read of mine for quite some time has been Hugh Hewitt's commentary. As I found out via All Things Beautiful, Hugh Hewitt has begun a new project called the OneTrueGodBlog.

In the introductory description, Hewitt explains the fundamental purpose behind his rationale for putting together this venue,

The first question should be: Why? The answer is because theology matters. A lot. I have asked these five excellent minds to ponder occasional questions from a layman that the layman thinks would be of interest to many more layman. I have discovered after 15 years in broadcast journalism that such questions and the answers they elicit are of great interest to the general public.
How to Read This Blog
You should read this blog more like a discussion board than a traditional blog. The questions are listed below, and over in the Categories section under "Hugh's Questions." Each question is its own category, with the responses listed in the order they were posted, like a discussion board.

As PowerPundit iterates,

Hugh Hewitt is running a fascinating new blog called OneTrueGodBlog. I ran into the site while doing some research, after seeing the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Bookmark this blog/discussion board if you are interested in a serious Christian theological discussion among some highly qualified individuals. Hugh asks the questions and the contributors respond with individual posts similar to permalinked blog posts.
As these matters should play a central role in our lives, this will be a blog of interest that I will frequent in the future. Take note, yourself, as I will be looking forward to the read here, so should you.

The approach taken by Hewitt is quite simply outstanding. Particularly, his instructions for us all to approach the commentary as a "discussion board" in reading proves to be a very challenging instruction. This instruction mandates that we approach the issues and topics presented with an open mind, and with a mind ready to articulate our own individual beliefs.

The discussion currently piquing my interest is the 'Demons' post, which is a subject many of us ignore on a daily basis. However, as the discussion demonstrates, this topic is something we all should all think about. If this is illustrative of what we can expect in the future, your humble pundit joins my fellow bloggers in anxiously awaiting what is to come.

With Whom Much Is Trusted

2005-09-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

It is quite disheartening to see such lofty positions of trust filled with corruption and such blatant deceit. In this time of American History, where grave threats are leveled against us, questioning our national security apparatus; those that act as brokers for the weak and hapless, prey off both sides of the field. Whether the people who seek citizenship are innocent or whether these immigrants proactively participated in the deceit, it matters not, for the individuals who lawfully seek citizenship are displaced as the manifestation of distrust is planted in the collective American mindset.

As this story reveals, an attorney engaged in the practice of aiding those seeking citizenship within the United States was sentenced,

United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein announces that today U.S. District Court Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. sentenced Maqsood Mir, 52, an immigration lawyer practicing in Potomac, Maryland, to 78 months in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release in connection with his April 14, 2005 conviction by a federal jury of immigration fraud related to the filing of false immigration documents that allowed illegal aliens to enter and/or remain in the United States. The Judge also ordered Mir to pay a $25,000 fine and Mir Law Associates to pay a $200, 000 fine.

The travesty truly found within this story is that this attorney disenfranchises immigrants to this country who petition lawfully. The seeds of distrust are now planted within our collective mindsets. Matters pertaining to illegal immigration are already at the forefront due to the nature of our porous borders, and now we must be concerned with those on the inside working against our laws and security.

Furthermore, in the least of this travesty, this attorney and his practice has tarnished the reputation of any and all of those who wish to go about doing the process in the correct manner and have already done so. Now the aura of skepticism will be laid on all of those as these stories emerge. What careless, and what a grossly liable practice, in the least, how foolish was this act for every single party involved.

Ultimately, once again the American people are the ones bearing the costs and are the ones who bear much to be concerned with.

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst, held every Monday at Euphoric Reality and other blogs. Our mission is to keep immigration issues at the forefront. If you'd like to be a part of it, send your blog URL and name to kit.jarrell@ gmail dot com.

Triangulations

2005-09-26T05:50:00.000-07:00

A recent post on The Right Field piqued my interest and the analogy posed. Herein, "Right Fielder' masterfully weaved an analogy between Red China and a democratic frontrunner for the presidency. In the post, 'Right Field' discussed recent restrictions upon free expression engaged by the communist government of China. Such action is necessary when the ideology of that government has been proven time and time again to be an utter failure. The government has but no choice in the least but to stifle the truth and fact from its citizens.

As 'Right Fielder' illustrates, such was the logic of Senator Hillary Clinton during her husband's decadent second term.

"When pressed for thoughts on the internet, Clinton states 'we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with' the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites."

Yet, does this not go further? The modern democratic party meanders aimlessly with no guiding light. Democrats do not have a set of core values which allows them to "triangulate" and shift their beliefs to better suit their political posturing. With the advent of such resources as MoveOn.org, does Hillary feel the same way? What were motivations for saying something so preposterous back in 1998?

Symptoms

2005-09-26T05:45:00.000-07:00

As Michelle Malkin speaks about this morning, much of the rhetoric emanating from New Orleans, and much of the hype of what those poor souls were enduring may not have happened. By no means should this be construed to minimize what went on and some of the mistakes that were made, this is directly aimed at the way the entire occurrence was reported. Many of the rapes and murders bantered about the news incessantly in the days following Katrina's rampage either did not occur at all, or has not as yet been corroborated.

This is illustrative of the symptoms plaguing the MSM. It is not so much about covering the news anymore as it is of agendas and ratings.

Continuous Hurricane Rita Coverage (Sticky Post)

2005-09-24T10:00:00.000-07:00

RITA ARRIVES! - With howling winds and driving rain, Hurricane Rita made landfall at 3:30 a.m. ET Saturday on the extreme southwest coast of Louisiana near Sabine Pass, Texas.
The Category 3 storm -- packing winds of 120 mph -- lashed the Texas and Louisiana coasts for hours before landfall, and first pre-dawn damage was reported in several locations, including Galveston, Texas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Local Forecasts:
Houston, TX
New Orleans, LA
Galveston, TX
Cameron, LA

It is being reported that the heores of the Houston Fire Department, in the midst of this hurricane, are battling fires during the storm....the same is being reported in Galveston.

MSNBC's Hurricanes' Havoc: "Seeking Solace"

In SouthWest Louisiana...Hurricane Rita's eyewall, containing wind gusts of at least 90 to 115 mph, has absolutely punished coastal and interior areas of southwest Louisiana along with portions of Jefferson and Orange counties across the border in Texas. Hurricane Rita made landfall at 2:30 am CDT just east of the Texas/Louisiana border in western Cameron Parish between Sabine Pass and Johnson's Bayou. With the likelihood of a tremendous surge along with the torrential rain, there were immediate reports of flooding in Cameron and Lake Charles, Louisiana. In fact, there is almost no doubt that a powerful surge has overcome a good portion of Cameron Parish, Louisiana.

Optimistic Outlook! Hurricane Rita with 125-mph winds is now a Category 3 storm. Drier mid-level air from over the continent to the north and west of the hurricane is being entrained into the system, disrupting the eyewall core. Rita continues to successively reorganize its eye but the overall effect is to steadily weaken the hurricane. Rita is still a major hurricane but every little of weakening helps.

"Overall Tendency is for Rita to Weaken Gradually..."

Pushed To The Brink.....AGAIN!!
Hurricane Rita's steady rains sent water pouring through breaches in a patched levee Friday, cascading into one of the city's lowest-lying neighborhoods in a devastating repeat of New Orleans' flooding nightmare.

Houston & Galveston May Not Be In Direct Path! Hurricane Rita closed in on the Texas Gulf Coast and the heart of the U.S. oil-refining industry with howling 140 mph winds Thursday, but a sharper-than-expected turn to the right set it on a course that could spare Houston and nearby Galveston a direct hit.

The CatHouse Chat and The Donkey Stomp reminded me of something we ALL need to keep in mind. As Hurricane Rita approaches Texas and Lousiana, let us all submit a "Prayer for those in the path of Rita" because this is "Another Time for Prayer."

Barking Moonbat has a collection of links regarding Rita.

Environmentalist Cannot Wait to Gnash Their Teeth - "This is global warming, says environmental chief" Super-powerful hurricanes now hitting the United States are the "smoking gun" of global warming, one of Britain's leading scientists believes.

Can Louisiana Stand Fast?
Some areas of southwest Louisiana are already experiencing Hurricane Rita's outer bands despite the predicted landfall not expected until Saturday.

Forecasters Are Correct, Thus Far...
Rita downgraded to
Category 4 - Hurricane Rita weakened to a Category 4storm with winds at 150 miles per hour but remained an extremely dangerous storm, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said Thursday afternoon. It forecast the storm would hit near the Houston area, the heart of the U.S. oil industry, as a dangerous hurricane of at least Category 3 intensity early Saturday.

Cautiously Optimistic...
The Category 5 storm weakened slightly Thursday morning, and forecasters said it could be down to a Category 3 _ meaning winds as high as 130 mph _ by the time it comes ashore late Friday or early Saturday. But it could still be a dangerous storm _ one aimed straight at a section of coastline with the nation's biggest concentration of oil refineries.

The Daily Blogster picked up on a story that should be of interest to many of my readers. It seems as though an outlet of the MSM has given legitimacy to the blogosphere as a vehicle for promulgating the news of the day. This is the only explanation that I could come to other than the fact that they are just too cowardly to do their own jobs. Makeup your own mind at "The Houston Chronicle Encouraging Bloggers to Stay?"

Rita Could Be Strongest Storm to Hit Texas - Gaining strength with frightening speed, Hurricane Rita swirled toward the Gulf Coast a Category 5, 175-mph monster Wednesday as more than 1.3 million people in Texas and Louisiana were sent packing on orders from authorities who learned a bitter lesson from Katrina.

Rita Upgraded To Category 5 Storm!!
(Hat Tip: Gina's Rantings)

Cat. 5 Status is Quite Difficult to Maintain,
"If there is any good news at this point, it is the fact that it is very difficult for a hurricane to maintain category 5 status for any lengthy period of time. Near-perfect to perfect atmospheric conditions are necessary for a category 5 hurricane to exist and these "perfect" conditions are first - difficult to come by and second - do not remain in place for a long period of time. So although Rita is currently a category 5 hurricane, fluctuations in intensity is likely. That being said, it is almost a certainty that Rita will make landfall as a large, intense, major hurricane with impacts extending well away from the center."

-Galveston County officials are planning a mandatory evacuation.
(Mandatory Evac Tomorrow) -Houston Mayor calls for partial evacuation. -Governor Rick Perry calling for "voluntary" evacuations throughout east Texas...

Local Texas Bloggers Cover Hurricane Rita Coverage:

Generation Why? (Houston) - Evacuation Routes

Blogs of War (Houston)

Houston's Clear Thinkers (Houston)

Liberty's Blog (Galveston)

Burnt Orange Report - Storm Surge Zones

Lone Star Times - Worst Case Scenario

As noted by the Houston Chronicle's Huricane Rita blog, hotel rooms as far away as Oklahoma are beginning to fill up.

Rose Rougeau, spokesperson for AAA Texas, said early this afternoon that members seeking to get out of Houston are being placed in Oklahoma hotels now." There are still some rooms left in Abilene. But when we tell people we can't place them closer than Oklahoma they are fine with that. They just want to get out of harm's way," Rougeau said.

Rita's Tracking Map
Loop....(amazing satellite imagery)
Tracking Models

Valero Energy Corp. Chairman and CEO, Bill Greehey, spoke this morning on Rita's expected impact to the already stressed oil production and refining capability here in the United States:

"If it hits the refineries, and we're short refining capacity, you're going to see gasoline prices well over $3.00 a gallon at the pump," Greehey said in a Tuesday night interview.
Simply unfathomable! Rita could mean $5.oo gasoline...

Links (if any readers know of additional resources, please feel free to e-mail me or leave a comment):

-TheStormTrack
-The Weather Channel Blog

It is a sad state that Bush Administration has to release statements such as this in times such as these.

President Bush: "I urge the citizens to listen carefully to the instructions provided by state and local authorities and follow them," Bush said in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition. "We hope and pray that Hurricane Rita will not be a devastating. storm but we got to be ready for the worst."

Unfortunately, I propose a theory regarding this scenario, and how it will inevitably unfold. I diagrees with the postulations of The Violence Worker on this issue. With the efforts to evacuate SouthEast Texas, and the relative success it has seen thus far, your humble pundit postulates that before this is all said and done, that President Bush will be blamed for pandering to his home state in some form or fashion.

Saturday Synopsis (3d ed.)

2005-09-24T04:07:00.000-07:00

This is the third edition of the best the blogosphere had to offer in the week that was September 18 - 24, 2005:

As much as liberals blame President Bush for Hurricane Katrina, at least this gentleman put some thought into his conspiracy theory. Of course, I reference Scott Stevens, the Idaho Weatherman who believes "the Yakuza Mafia used a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to cause Hurricane Katrina in a bid to avenge the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima." As this story observed by Euphoric Reality illustrates, he is still the only person to lend himself any credence whatsoever.
While I was enthralled with covering Hurricane Rita, other blogs such as A Conservative's Corner covered the John Roberts confirmation by the Senate Judciary Committee. Needless to say there was much in the ways of pontification and "meatless rhetoric," yet in the end Judge John Roberts was confirmed and will now move to the full Senate for a vote.
Except in the realms of the blogosphere, here A Captains Quarter's, why does this story continue to fly under the radar?!
Reagenites Unite! reminds of why we all should read more Ann Coulter, and also shows us how conservative morale is not at an all time high now with the innerworkings of this governement and, particularly, the Bush Administration. Where do you stand on this issue? Yet, this is not the only scathing piece of the week in the realms of the Big Government, The Wide Awakes also poignantly reamed the the outrageous governemental spending that has become status quo ante of late.
Definition of "PatriAutism"
Heineken shamelessly exploits the looters of New Orleans!

Caption This!

2005-09-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

In an effort to prepare for the weekend in a lightheaerted manner, a new 'regular' will be attempted this week. I will submit a photograph, and you, the reader should 'caption' the photgraph in my comments section. And, for this, the first week, I submit to you, everyone's favorite Governor:

Dangerous Games

2005-09-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Constitution itself reads,

The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .

And, The Heritage Foundation presents a compelling analysis of the plain-text rationale connoted by this verbiage:

The principal concern of the Framers regarding the Appointments Clause, as in many of the other separation of powers provisions of the Constitution, was to ensure accountability while avoiding tyranny. Hence, following the suggestion of Nathaniel Gorham of New Hampshire and the example of the Massachusetts Constitution drafted by John Adams, the Framers gave the power of nomination to the President so that the initiative of choice would be a single individual's responsibility but provided the check of advice and consent to forestall the possibility of abuse of this power. Gouverneur Morris described the advantages of this multistage process: 'As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security.'

Furthermore, the Federalist Papers further illustrates some of these tenents by highlighting the original intent of the individuals responsible for the constitution's drafting,

'[I]t is easy to show that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of nomination which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment.'
-The Federalist No. 76.

With such conclusions to be drawn by the Heritage Foundation and the individuals responsible for such fundamental elements of our constitution; should the statements of Senator Hillary Clinton and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg be construed as anything less than dangerous?

Senator Hillary Clinton, in her statement announcing she will vote "NO" for the confirmation of Judge Roberts stated:

[B]ecause I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills."

The 'non-partisan,' 'non-political,' 'neutral' Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined yesterday at a speech to the New York Bar Association:

"[S]ome women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights..."
&
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.

Thus, based upon these statements, that represent but a microcosm of what those on the left emanate daily in how they approach ourfundamentall rights. Is it not easily to construe why those on the left promulgate their beliefs through the courts and not through our established democratic processes? Can these statements even be closely reconciled in any form with what out Constitution states plainly?

Newspeak...

2005-09-22T04:00:00.000-07:00

Stop the ACLU BlogBurst (09/22/2005)

It seems as though an escalation of news stories from around the world wide web illustrate a growing threat to our way of life. A collection of individual, somewhat unique occurrences coalesce into common threads; specifically, these instances should demonstrate that terms referencing 'Jesus Christ' or any other symbols of our christian heritage have become explicative. Take for instance an ominous situation faced by the citizens of Oconee County, South Carolina,

At a city council meeting earlier this summer in Anderson a lawmaker opens in prayer referring to Jesus Christ. Just a year ago a federal appeals court ruled against the city of Great Falls, South Carolina for doing just that; writing, referring to a specific god like Jesus Christ shows preference for one religion and officially discriminates against all others.Mike Cubelo/President, Piedmont Chapter of ACLU-SC: 'The minute they have an invocation that refers to a specific deity they are in violation of the law.' And that's why the A.C.L.U has chimed in-- warning Oconee County and the cities of Anderson and Seneca of the potential high cost in legal fees and demanding confirmation the councils' uphold the courts ruling.
What is it specifically that the ACLU has against our heritage? Not only are they aggressivesive in their collective efforts to systematically erase reality, they have now become quite bold. With the inroads this organization has made, does their own power allow them to yield a blade of extortion? Notice,

"[W]arning Oconee County and the cities of Anderson and Seneca of the potential high cost in legal fees and demanding confirmation the council's uphold the courts ruling."

Piece by piece, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, the ACLU ravages one small group of Americans by singling them out. A proven strategy has been mastered and until Americans such as you and I begin to stand our ground, it will continue. They already engage in an Orwellian practice such as "Newspeak," which would call for documents such as our birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence to be purged or excused from legitimacy. It is quite lucrative, and they are quite successful, for they devour small groups of citizens in single sittings. It is time that several of these smaller groups band together to resist such tactics, it is time to Stop the ACLU. What this nation has established since its inception, and what we accomplish through the ballot box should not be cast aside in the court room.

SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER'S DOLE

This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. If you would like to join our efforts to fight the ACLU, it’s very simple. Just register at our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info you will need. Over 100 blogs already on board. Join us!

Gleaming From Comparisons

2005-09-20T20:19:00.000-07:00

More died at the Superdome after the Governor decided on a Pol Pot solution for evacuation of the city, e.g. Starve the city dwellers to force them into the countryside. And of course FEMA's political appointees, and by extension the Administration, failed to step in to address these and other problems, particularly the lack of coordination between the many agencies that were flying blind for the first 48 hours.

As observed by All Things Beautiful from a story appearing in a recent installment of Real Clear Politics; a strikingly inappropriate comparison has been cast into the discourse regarding asserted shortcomings in the leadership surrounding the lead up and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This analogy deserves nothing more than passing scold, yet it warrants reflection as it is illustrative of the sad state of affairs plaguing our modern political dynamics.

Naivete should not be given the same credence as evil, plainly and simply, just as ineptitude should not be compared with the darkest side of our human nature. What should never cease to amaze us as human beings, is the ability of our fellow human beings to inflict dastardly acts of evil. However, it is all too often that we, in our various strains of discourse, morally equate evil with what should be properly construed as mere ineptitude. Comparing Governor Kathleen Blanco (D-La.) with one of the twentieth century's worst despots does nothing for either side of the aisle. Yet, this is nothing short of pathetic; neither side of the aisle should be a factor for consideration since some events, and some of our concerns should supersede political issues. In these efforts, such political rhetoric and shenanigans deflects the attention from those in dire need. Correspondingly, stark comparisons invoked for political assassination should be scornfully construed in no less a fashion.

When should we begin to gleam, and what is to be learned? It should come well after all that Katrina has wrought has been put in place, when we have aided our fellow Americans in putting together the misplaced pieces of their lives. Just now we are beginning to see the causes that led to the effects in and all surrounding this natural disaster.

Everything wrought by this tragedy has illustrated that big and bigger government does not adequately meet the needs of the Americans it swore to protect. From the federal government's supposed lack of response, which, with everything cited by those from the left indicting President Bush, has done nothing more than highlighted the folly undergirding the tenets of their party's mantra since the days of their hallowed FDR and his New Deal. Furthermore, it is undeniable that the ideals of the Democratic Party have had opportunity to flourish in Louisiana; securing a bastion of liberal 'bliss' for numerous generations. What has been starkly observed these last few weeks is the welfare utopia that was New Orleans was nothing more than a house of cards.

Where are the equations to be ascertained from these stark realities?

With all such said as preface it may be clear as to where I lead, but it must be reverberated that Governor Blanco's clear lack of leadership cannot be morally equated to despotism. It would not do justice to the lives lost under such scourge of this earth, and for the only hope for goodness blossoming from such dastardly acts: a lesson for humanity's future generations. Make no mistake, her actions should be construed as heinous for they bordered, if not spilled over, the realm of criminal negligence. For such, this individual should be held liable. Blatantly, therein lies the fork dividing our road of analysis, for your humble pundit firmly distinguishes between what should be promulgated as culpability and what should be observed as liability. Quite simply, I state her actions clearly lacked the requisite malice aforethought to be morally equated with those in the annals of humanity's worst.

It has been proven time and time again that which socialistic idealism mandates clashes with the tenets that made this country what it is in the world today. It takes such times that we endure to cast the illuminating light onto that which most of us already know: Dependence creates haplessness Yet, liberal idealogues such as Governor Blanco should not be equated with the worst in humanity simply because they are naive and foolish.

Let us learn from such grave hardship that we have endured as a nation. Just as we did on that fateful day, on that warm September morning not such a long time ago...let us come together as a nation, and refrain from the wedges that will tear us asunder. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton, and their predecessors alike ignored the tell-tale signs that could have prevented 9/11's evil accomplishments. Yet, through such, it does not make any one of them guilty of sins warranting callous equations and accusations. Our careless indictments only prevent work that must be done and it clouds our vision to learn the lessons to be gleamed and implemented in the future.

Too Good To Resist

2005-09-20T18:40:00.000-07:00

As The Right Track reports today, ex-President Bill Clinton finally has a suitable monument to his esteemed and unforgettable legacy.

Turn Back The Clock

2005-09-19T18:34:00.000-07:00

As your humble pundit has noted time and again, Cindy Sheehan has been used and abused by the those on the far left in their efforts to denigrate President Bush utilizing every conceivable ploy at their disposal.

However, as noted by The Wide Awakes, thankfully, her fifteen minutes of fame should have long since expired.......but have they? As Michelle Malkin notes, the clock may have just turned back a couple of minutes...

Mrs. Clinton is "waiting for the best political moment to say" she opposes the war, Ms. Sheehan said during a 15-minute speech. "You say it or you're losing your job," she said, provoking a roar of approval from the audience. Mrs. Clinton, believed to be a possible presidential contender in 2008, has said she supports the war in Iraq and has pushed for a greater troop presence in the country.

Vanity

2005-09-19T09:00:00.000-07:00

As I was perusing through the various headlines generated over the weekend, something slowly caught my eye as I shuffled through more and more websites. A name leapt from the title page. It was an old friend, and this name leaping from these headlines was none other than everyone's favorite ex-president, Bill Clinton.

Though, I must say, some of the headlines on each and every page, and their accompanying stories had to do with statements of asininity; someone so prolific as President Clinton should engage in such petty, naive talking points. Invoking race and somehow equating race as being the underlying factor of why "mistakes" were made is beyond someone of the position or stature of ex-President Clinton. However, as I began to look back on the "glorious" days that saw Bill Clinton as our Commander-in-Chief, I began to realize that this was not so surprising. What was the one theme, the one mantra that can be taken from the Clinton Administration during the 'Roaring 90s?' Let us just say it resonates well with a line from one of your humble pundit's favorite cinematic works:

"Vanity, definitely my favorite sin."
-John Milton (Al Pacino)"The Devil's Advocate"

Throughout the Roaring 90's, all Clinton was concerned with was making himself as popular as he possibly could. Incontrovertible in that every decision he needed to make, he did not demonstrate leadership, he demonstrated an undying ability to calculate every iota of public opinion on the particular matter. One is naive to politics and history if that person does not distinguish ex-President Clinton from other Presidents in this realm; and, is extremely ignorant of intellectual honesty if they would consider him synonymous to others in how he weighed his precious polling data. For up until that point in American History, nothing had been seen as the likes of 'The War Room' and no President has ever been as poll driven as that president in that administration. One thing that will reverberate throughout the annals of history is his uncanny ability to slither through a scandal with the least amount of shame and incredulously as possible. This will be his legacy and this will be the way he is remembered.

With such, why am I reopening these old subjects? Why am I wasting space in my realm to engage President Clinton's rhetoric? Simply stated, history should always be reviewed in order to learn from such events to prevent those events from returning. Clinton's favorite stratagem was to implement a proactive game plan against those who stood in his way; this, in order to stay ahead of the polling data, to entrench himself within the "will" of the American people. Herein, the statements from Tim Russerts's interview with Clinton illustrate one of two possibilities:

He is further solidifying the posturing and triangulation being conducted by his wife, Hillary, for her run for the presidency in 2008. Bill Clinton is making statements that Hillary cannot, but in essence, he is her mouthpiece at this point in time. This, demonstrated by the fact that he has the audacity to state that she need not make any pledge of allegiance to her constituency as she is keeping her eye on her senate seat. Or,
Something lurks within his legacy for which he is utterly ashamed, and he knows it will cost him dearly as he perpetually resuscitates that shell of a legacy he has. Namely, my fellow pundits throughout the blogosphere have already began to stipulate, and many times, they clearly outline the failures of the Clinton Administration in the realms of protecting the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Personally, I believe the latter speculation is more than likely what is being engaged here by ex-President Clinton. It was quite a bold move for Clinton to go on a scorched earth offensive against President Bush. This, in light of the fact that President Bush, in good faith, extends the hand of bipartisan collaboration by having Clinton aid his father in the rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Katrina. His poisonous barbs inflaming the racial tensions during these times of national peril show a low move; even for a someone such as Clinton. Nevertheless, his actions should not be taken as purely partisan or simply as some cheap attack on President Bush. Clinton is a clever fellow, and he never makes an uncalculated move. These statements should not be callously brushed aside for they reveal some deeper movement is underway. With such, another line from John Milton should be remembered as the left will seize upon these statements in utter delight.

"Well, consider the source son."

Remember this as "The First Black President" goes on the offensive and his statements are recycled over and over this week. What is the purpose behind these statements, we already know them to be egregiously careless, but what were his motivations?

"[W]hatever it's going to cost"

2005-09-18T20:03:00.000-07:00

"'It's going to cost whatever it's going to cost, and we're going to be wise about the money we spend,' Bush said a day after laying out an expensive plan for rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast without spelling out how he would pay for it."

Has similar rhetoric not been the mantra of this Administration in the "ways & means" of fiscal matters? With all due respect, Mr. President, rare is the instance in life when an individual "can have it both ways..."

I have not come to terms with the concept of those inside the beltway when it comes to strategies implemented during times of budgeting concern. For most Americans, when outflows come perilously close to exceeding inflows, it would be high time to stifle the outflows. However, once inside the beltway, spending another person's money, this is not the first perogative of those in government. The first, and, seemingly, only option excercised by those in power is to increase inflows via raising taxes. Why can our own leaders not reflect what most Americans find to be common sensical? Most Americans wold not seek a second revenue source, they would simply cut any additional, unnecessary spending.

As noted at Donkey Stomp, President Bush should be credited for not seeking to raise taxes; it would seem as though he learned this from his father who sealed his own fate by raising taxes. Though, President Bush should take fiscal responsibility in decreasing unnecessary spending. His inability to reject any congressional funding plan further blurs the line that divides the aisle between the left and the right when speaking in the realm of fiscal matters.

Saturday Synopsis (2d ed.)

2005-09-17T06:13:00.000-07:00

This is the second edition of the best the blogosphere had to offer in the week that was September 11 - 17, 2005:

It Is What It Is notes that the esteemed Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin is now blaming the Bush Administration for the lower (no, sadly, this is not a typographical error) body count. It seems that he is not at all happy that the casualties that his city endured is not larger in their total. I wish this was something out of The Onion, but, unfortunately, it is not: "New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin today blamed President George Bush for the lower-than-expected number of bodies discovered in the receding flood waters, and said it's part of a White House campaign "to prevent black people from getting what they deserve." But, more and more criticism of this inept individual is beginning to gain momentum in the blogosphere. Could his own ineptitude and shortcomings be the reason that blogs such as the Right Field have begun to fervently criticize this man? Can he not take any personal responsibility, or is everything someone else's fault?
Recently, I have subscribed to the political comic strip, Day by Day, due to a recommendation from The Right Track. It is updated daily and can be found 'underneath' my commentary.
The Wide Awakes has an interesting piece of commentary regarding what President Bush's speech of Thursday night means fiscally for this country; and, how it is a further revelation that is 'conservative' President is anything but when it comes to distributing wealth to the masses, he does it with the same veracity as some of the great Democrat stalwarts. (Thank God he is not following in his Daddy's footsteps....)
Does this mean Hurricane Katrina is Tony Blair's fault?!?
Quote of the Week: "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don't fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest." Sometimes, one's own words and where they arise are all that need to be reported. If you notice in the story, Cindy Sheehan is no longer relevant for this statement comes to us via Michael Moore. As The Violence Worker notes, "If reading this doesn't wake you up to the fact that this woman is so out of touch with reality as to have completely lost all powers of reasoning, than you are either dead or terminally comatose."
An excellent definition of a "Barking Moonbat" can be found at The Daily Blogster.

Crossroads

2005-09-15T17:00:00.000-07:00

"free from a coercive requirement to affirm God...."

How did this nation get to the crossroads in time where an affirmation of a God could be in any plausible way construed as 'coercive?' Most Americans, and your humble pundit is but assuming herein, but an educated guess would lend itself to inference that most Americans do not even know what the specific verbiage of the First Amendment includes, let alone any other document pertaining to these matters. Yet, most of my fellow Americans cling to the deceivingly innocuous phrase "separation of church & state," which will not be found in any particular bastion within the Constitution; lest one considers the personal correspondence of a man living in France at the time of the Constitution's drafting and passage that pertinent for discourse. Whatever ideological perspective one puts their respective jurisprudential beliefs into, cannot, with any resemblance of intellectual honesty, state that the founders of this great nation did seek resolute affirmation from their Creator.

How can this rationale, this assertion, that the simplistic phrase "under God" be construed as a "coercive requirement?" I cannot possibly begin to reconcile this simple phrase's supposed coercive nature with the words emanating from the document giving birth to this nation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

This great nation was conceived under the auspice that any fundamnetal Right men cherish and enjoy is derived from our Creator. With such clear rhetoric, is this to be construed as "coercive" as well? This inquiry, notwithstanding the irreconcilable fact, that the word "coercive" has no reference or inkling within our founding documents, but it has become the determinative factor based upon the fiat of those who arrogantly assert their will before the American will. Let us live by what is said in our founding documents, let the tyranny of the judiciary cease, and be no more.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

Combination of both the Declaration of Independence and the aforementioned Amendment to the Constitution delineates that there is no "coercive" nature by the affirmation of our God who bestowed our unalienable rights. It is merely an expression of gratitude and neutrality that the rights each citizen enjoys is not of this world, that is, it is not of man. Yet, men, in their arrogance are demanding that no intercession be made; that certain Rights we enjoy are the fruit of the government. Was this not a significant portion of the reasoning undergirding the foundational determination to fight to break those surly bounds?

What is it about the mere acknowledgement of a god? What makes this so heinous to some that others believe in something, anything? Why must the nation be subjugated to such narrow-minded ideology? Mr. New Dow and the ilk such as the ACLU will not rest until we are coerced into following their dogma. It is such a shame that this utter hypocrisy is given even an ounce of credence, but being given its day in court is patently absurd. America deserves better for we sprang forth with an ideal that was better. Our God gave us unalienable rights so that we may enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the coercion of any government.

Thank God Almighty that their are others who cherish these unalienable rights:
Cao's Blog
The Right Track
Stop the ACLU

I Want To Be In That Number...?

2005-09-15T06:00:00.000-07:00

The Captain's Quarter's in "Will Only Saints Come Marching Back?" is reporting on a very interesting poll generated from the evacuees out of New Orleans who are pondering whether to return 'home.' It seems as if they are reluctant to return to the Crescent City after these course of events brought about by Hurricane Katrina.

Now, this polling data is particularly interesting in light of the fact that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was chastized and berated for his comments pertaining to his reluctance in forking over a substantial amount of federal money to rebuild New Orleans immediately after the storm had passed.

This is quite the delicate subject, indeed. As The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy proclaims: Wake up! Discuss!

Drunken Sailors

2005-09-15T04:05:00.000-07:00

For the sake of all things conservative, surely House Majority Leader Tom Delay speaks in jest, for any reasonable conservative would not iterate something that is so diametrically opposed to one of the movement's most fundamental tents. Limited government and the ancillary, lowered government spending, is one of the key promulgations of the modern conservative movement. Is this not a crass, and somewhat frightening statement from a key Republican?

"'My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the
offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any
yet,' the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing."

This statement, here, is why your humble pundit has not (completely) lost heart. Would it not be a clever ploy to bring 'statist' and liberals from their hiding? Majority Leader Delay has postured himself in quite a strong, defensible position when analyzed from the proper perspective. From his position, he is inviting criticism on such a robust statement for both sides of the aisle have been harping on how much spending and waste the last few terms has yielded. Tis true that this is quite a dangerous game, but he stated he will gladly hear where the government needs to trim it's fat. On the converse, if the state of our budget is as he says it is, then the Republicans have done a noble deed for this nation. In such, Republicans have done a noble work in a very small amount of time.

"Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

While those of us on the right side of the aisle know that the latter is not the case, it will be entertaining to observe the writhing and antics of those on the left as they wrestle with this grand 'strategery' of House Majority Leader Delay. Let us hope and trust that this will shine a bright light on the radical, out-of-control spending of our leaders, left or right. Unfortunately, our government emanates the theme of a quote from former President Reagan,

"It's not fair to say that Congress spends money like a drunk sailor. At least
the sailor is spending his own money!"

The John Roberts Show

2005-09-13T19:00:00.000-07:00

Regardless of whether Judge Roberts is an 'activist,' a 'textualist' or an 'orginalist,' it matters not in any sense at this point in time, for he is about to be confirmed as this nation's 17th Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States.

This assertion should be seen as a foregone conclusion at this point in the procedure. Despite my daily toils and tribulations, I was able to sit down and absorb limited coverage of the confirmation hearings this afternoon. It is with such limited time that I make no mistake in saying 'regardless,' for anyone observing the poise and candor of Judge John Roberts knows how he developed his solid reputation and distinguished resume in his short fifty years and shorter legal career. His ability to recollect the most minute detail of some of the most archaic cases and controversies is unfathomable. Not to mention, his ability to articulate some of the most difficult legal issues with such poignancy and simplicity is nothing short of mind-boggling.

Despite the poisonous barbs flung from those sitting to Chairman Arlen Specter's left, Judge Roberts was able to maintain his composure and run circles around anything that the Democrats believed they had in their arsenal. The Democrats should take a moment and realize that their actions do not come across as noble, nor do they come across as valiant, these attacks are as transparent as the puny rhetoric contained within the attacks. Again, these games played by the politicians matter not in the least since Judge John Roberts could not be handling the situation in a more dignified manner.

Judge John Roberts has, and will continue to prove he is qualified for the position that President Bush has nominated him for, it is not to be the decision of the Senate on the merits whether he ascends to the center chair, it is the Senate's responsibility to determine his qualifications. With each barb lobbed by Senators Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer; Judge Roberts further illustrates why I, along with others, are beginning to see President Bush plucked the right man to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Monumental Day

2005-09-12T07:24:00.000-07:00

Considering this nation will only have had 17 Supreme Court Chief Justice's when Judge John Roberts succeeds the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, today's process and the ramifications that will be felt from it, should merit anyone concerned with the leaders of this nation to take observation of this process as it unfolds this week.

National Review's Edward Whelan provides a thought-provoking forecast of how he speculates the confirmation of Judge Roberts will inevitably play out:

[T]he three fundamental dynamics of the hearing: (1) While feigning
openmindedness at the outset of the hearing, the committee's Democrats will
harshly attack Roberts. (2) Roberts's primary strategic goal will be to secure
Chairman Arlen Specter's support, not to appease Democrats. (3) And the other
Republican senators on the committee will face a choice between the politically
safe and lazy course of defending Roberts entirely on neutral grounds and the
jurisprudentially sound course of advancing the arguments for judicial
restraint.

There is every reason to believe that Roberts will be confirmed as chief justice. But how these dynamics play out during Roberts's hearing will shape the battle over the next justice.

As Mr. Whelan states, it seems to be a growing conclusion that this process is all but a non-issue for the credentials that Judge Roberts has devloped over his short, but prestigious career ensure his speedy confirmation. I, too, share this belief, though I do not foresee the Democrats neglecting an oppurtunity to grandstand and berate President Bush's nominee before a national audience, I think he will readily ascend to the bench before the Court's new term is set to begin.

2005-09-12T07:05:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip to the 'Museum of Left Wing Lunacy' for this political cartoon. I am sure that everyone, on both the left and right side of the aisle, can find a little humor from this.

9/11 (+4)

2005-09-11T06:17:00.000-07:00

I laughed, I scoffed at my friends. I blatantly told them that they were blowing it out of proportion somehow and arrogantly told them that what they were describing could not conceivably occur in the United States of America.

Then, a man with whom I would not suspect to be one succumbing to emotions entered the room to begin our meeting, and stated, with a tearful eye, that he had friends in the Pentagon, saying nothing more as he departed. Dumbstruck and not knowing what to expect, I rushed home to a find a great friend staring at a television screen in disbelief, and with genuine fear, an image that would inevitably be seared into my mind: the first scenes of the WTC crumbling. I will never forget the look on his face as he turned to look at me....

With such, I was swept away into action for the rest of the day, emotion did not catch up with me until standing at a Red Cross shelter looking at the countless faces that reflected the same look, the same eyes that my friend had.....

What happened? Why? Who? Of course, we did not know that day.

In the ensuing weeks we learned. I received this letter as a 'FORWARD,' and its words resonated with me throughout those early weeks. It words still bring those same basic human emotions that I felt that day and the weeks to follow:

'We'll go forward from this moment'

It's my job to have something to say.
They pay me to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only think
that I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.
You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.
What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's
attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we
would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed.
Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause.
Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.
Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.
Let me tell you about my family and my people. We are a
vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, social, politics and class
division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending
tremendous emotional energy on pop culture minutiae - a singer's revealing
dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by
the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of
that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are
fundamentally decent, though - peace loving and compassionate. We struggle to
know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us,
people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.
Some people - you, perhaps - think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are
not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured in arsenals
IN PAIN
Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and
we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you
did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect
from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy
novel. Both in terms of the awful scope of their ambition and the probable final
death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in
the history of the United States, and probably, the history of the world. You've
bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before.
But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone his us this hard, the last
time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are
righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of
barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the
pursuit of justice.
I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my
people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It causes me to
tremble with dread of the future.
In the days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again.
There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms.
We'll go forward from this moment sobered and chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.
THE STEEL IN US
You see, the steel in us is not always
readily apparent. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people
who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on
hold.
As Americans we'll weep, as Americans we mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.
So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to
me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's
the case, consider your message received. And take this message in exchange: You
don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what
you just started.
But, you're about to learn.
-Leonard Pitts, Jr.

Now, in retrospect, as I look at these same words for the first time since those days, the words that jump from the page are

When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our
force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay
any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.

Thank God almighty himself for genuine leaders who do not utter such rhetoric for it's own sake, but who pursue such endeavors with cognizance of the ramifications they entail. This war against the barbarians began long before 9/11, but just as we have done throughout our long history, we were slow to ascertain a threat upon our national security until the losses were personal and loss was quite substantive. This directly correlating with our peaceful nature and our seeing the best in anyone before coming to terms with the worst human nature has to offer. Despite the disingenuous nature of the those on the left who will stop at nothing in their frothing hatred of this President, Americans have stayed the course. Americans, reminiscent of scores of previous generations, know, as does our President, that we have a long, treacherous road ahead of us. It is with such that I am genuinely proud of my fellow Americans, our family, being united in times when it matters the most. Just like a family, we know when and how to put away the bickering.

As we still move forward, we must not afford to forget the pain. We cannot afford to forget the suffering endured by our fellow Americans. As the far left has done in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, they are now doing in full force with 9/11, it has become a political game to be mastered, through which spin and conspiracy theories run ramped. What asinine, naive games those on the left play with such that is the basis of our human existence, our lives. This definitively illustrates why these people continue to fail miserably in every election. Fortunately for every American, left or right, they continue dogmatically to cling to their naivete, through which those with courage to face what is reality continue to protect each and every one of our lives.

My fellow Americans, remember these images, remember that day. I began this post with but a piece of that day that was my own personal account. It still hurts to relive some of those memories, but we must all cling to our memories, our personal accounts. We must steadfastly hold onto what happened to us personally and what happened to our brothers and sisters. If we cannot hold these occurrences, and remember the undying hatred that that day saw, how can we be that beacon of freedom for the rest of the world? How can we spread hope throughout the world? For those who know not what they have, who fail to appreciate the blessings, will surely lose those blessing. Any apathy to something such as 9/11 would show that we have not learned, and those that do not learn from history....

(Please consider this an open forum to iterate your memories or share in other memorials. I will continue this thread as a forum that I will continue to update, if you would like to share any links of interest, or just share your thoughts, it is encouraged and would be appreciated)

Ace of Spades - September 11th
All Things Beautiful - Remembrance of Things Past
Area417 - Sept. 11: What were you doing four years ago today?
Atlas Shrugs - No Words
Barking Moonbat - The Day the Music Died
Blogs for Bush - Remembering
Bring it On! - Reflecting Back and Looking Forward
Brutally Honest - You haven't forgotten... have you?
California Yankee - A Day For Remembering
Cao's Blog - NEVER FORGET
Cap'n Bob - Remembering September 11, 2001
Captain's Quarters - Remembering 9/11
CatHouse Chat - Four years ago - never forget
California Conservative - 9/11: In Memoriam
Confederate Yankee - Nine Eleven Zero Five
Hugh Hewitt - The Heroes of the Long War
Pirate's Cove - 9/11: 4 Years Ago
The Jawa Report - Al Qaeda takes 9/11 anniversary to threaten more attacks
Ogre's Politics & Views - September 11th
PoliPundit - September 11 – In Pictures
Sportshaven - A Time to Reflect
Southern Appeal - Remember the Blood of Heroes
Generation Why? - Never Forget
Michelle Malkin - NEVER, NEVER FORGET
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - In Memoriam
Peat Bog - 9.11: A Beautiful Story
The Donkey Stomp - Remember September 11, 2001
The Moderate Voice - Four years later...
The Political Teen - 9/11 - Never Forget
Ravings of a Mad Tech - 9/11: My Remberance by Todd D. Miller
Red State Rant - September 11, 2005
Sister Toldjah - Remembering 9-11-01 (Reposting)
Stop the ACLU - September 11th Remembered
Speed of Thought... - Remembering...
The Wide Awakes - 9/11
The Gun Toting Liberal - It's 9/11 Again
Winds of Change - 9/11: Risin' Up From The Ashes...
Wizbang! - 9/11 Four Years Later (1)
Zaphriel's Blog - It was a Tuesday morning

'Saturday Synopsis'

2005-09-10T05:37:00.000-07:00

In the first edition of the 'Saturday Synopsis,' let your humble pundit highlight some of the sites and sounds that piqued his interest throughout the week that was September 4-10, 2005:

The Captain's Quarters highlights a tragic injustice to some of America's most fundamental heroes. Why can we not remember an event simply for what it was, instead of attempting to infuse political correctness into every aspect of our daily lives? "Can you imagine the outcry from the multiculturalists and the ACLU had the design incorporated a cross or a Star of David in honor of the victims? Why should we tolerate the Crescent that, inadvertently or deliberately, honors the terrorists?" My sentiments exactly.
Let me preface this highlight by saying that I unfortunately came to 'meet' this fellow blogger, Cobb, through the devastation wrought about by Katrina; however, I consider it fortuitous since I now enjoy visiting his blog quite often. Today, his outlook on the political spectrum that Katrina has created and will continue to create is quite an intriguing take: "I'm at a high point today, which feels almost like normal, but over the past 10 days I've been operating with one emotional wheel in the sand. I have a couple predictions about political repercussions....."
The Creative Conservative takes an honest look at Howard Dean's statements of this past week. What can I say, I cannot disagree, I, too, agree with Mr. Dean.
In The Art of the Blog, a poignant question is asked. It is a little unnerving to be thinking from this perspective, yet it is a question that should be asked.
Sandy Berger gets what he deserves....or does he? You be the judge, and let us know what your perspective is on this non-story that is generating absolutely nothing in the news currently. Ask yourself, even with all that is transpiring with Hurricane Katrina, would this story generate headlines or talking points?
And, last but not least, a good friend and colleague has taken the initiative and begun his own blog, 'Right Field,' where he will walk the fine line between sports & politics. This should definitely make for an entertaining place on the web considering that there are those who actually follow other things besides politics, imagine that. Check out his latest (and only, thus far) post 'Poetic Justice?'

In Defense of Sean Penn

2005-09-09T12:00:00.000-07:00

'Criminal Negligence,' as defined within Answers.com,

A gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a
reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk
(as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable
called also culpable negligence compare gross negligence in this entry.

Sean Penn, reminiscent of his days as an esteemed journalist qualifying whether the United States of America should engage Iraq based upon his determinations of the existence of WMDs, berated the United States this past week in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina natural disaster; particularly, his poisonous venom was aimed at President Bush's 'culpability' in the efforts to respond to the needs of the souls effected by the devastation wrought by Katrina,

There are people that are dying right now and I mean babies and old
people and everybody in between - they are dying. There are people dying and
(the US government are) not putting the boats in the water, I think that is
criminal negligence. I don't think anybody ever anticipated the criminal
negligence of the Bush administration in this situation.

Surely, Sean Penn would not engage in such theatrics in order to take political shots at an administration for whom he disagrees. His intentions are noble, and should be construed as nothing but pure (as reported by 'The Right Track'). It is always pleasant to see Hollywood engaged in such noble causes, and I encourage him to highlight occurrences throughout this ordeal that would merit evaluation for synonymous situations. Though, all in all, it will be quite curious to see the genuineness of Mr. Penn as the latest news unravels from the documented ineptitude of the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. This supposed leader's handling of the entire ordeal has bordered along the realms of being a comedy of errors, barring the fact that nothing has been humorous regarding these past two weeks. For lack of being transparent, blatantly partisan and arrogantly ignorant of the grandiose nature of this entire human tragedy, Mr. Penn should bring attention to the actions (or lack thereof) of New Orleans 'leader,' and ultimate 'first-responder,' Mayor Nagin.
As NewsMax reports,

Turns out, Nagin turned his nose up at the yellow buses, demanding
more comfortable Greyhound coaches instead. "I need 500 buses, man," he told
WWL. "One of the briefings we had they were talking about getting, you know,
public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out of here." Nagin
described his response: "I'm like - you've got to be kidding me. This is a
natural disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get
their asses moving to New Orleans."

A gross deviation from the standard of care....Please explain to me how this man, how this human being, could rationally make one of the most callous decisions seen in recent American History. There is no loose correlation that would not indicate that leaving the buses idle precluded any ability of those in need of help the most from escaping the wrath of Katrina. Any reasonable person, with any degree of cognizance could attenuate these facts. Foregoing what was a virtual guarantee of saving human life, this man, this supposed leader, pompously demanded more, but not more that would aid his constituency, more in the realms of luxury.

Mr. Penn, patiently I, along with America, await your tirade.

More or Less, "Less is More"

2005-09-09T11:00:00.000-07:00

In many ways, your humble pundit agrees with some of the fundamental tenets of this callous demand made by Mrs. Clinton. Callous? Yes, callous. Her intentions are seen as blatantly impure as this is a transparently opportunistic move on her part being an early presidential contender. One must question her intentions and timing in this situation of desperate need; however, one might begin to ponder whether Mrs. Clinton truly realizes the ramifications of her pontification.

"The slow pace of relief efforts in the face of a mounting death toll ... seems to confirm that our ability to respond to cataclysmic disasters has not been adequately addressed," she said. Clinton has decided at least one thing without waiting for any commission reports. She said she plans to introduce legislation to split the Federal Emergency Management Agency out of the Department of Homeland Security and give it back a cabinet-level director like it had in her husband's administration.

It is inferred from such rationality behind her rhetoric that the response to Hurricane Katrina would have been much more thorough and much more efficient precluding the arduous chain of command befallen are federal government. Not to say there was not any incompetence along this chain. Many have noted, including those that are generally supporters of this administration this unfortunate disposition:

"The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Michael Brown, deserves most of the blame for the federal government's inaction. He and his agency seemed as paralyzed and disoriented as the drowning inhabitants of New Orleans. Brown has been correctly portrayed as a political hack lacking the real world experience necessary to be proactive ahead of an impending disaster. His curriculum vitae lists as his last position enforcing rules relating to the breeding of Arabian horses. The reorganization of FEMA under the Homeland Security department must also be evaluated in light of this tragedy."

Yet, it cannot be and should not be promulgated that it is entirely one individual's culpability at stake within this situation. Surely, the party that generally seeks solutions that expand the government cannot be uttering counterintuitive principles now foropportunisticc gain. The device (FEMA under the guise of the Department of Homeland Security) now under fire by Mrs. Clinton was not even a concoction of a conservative republican. What is not the Democratic Party, via Senator Joseph Lieberman,that demanded the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security? I must admit that this demand interjected by Mrs. Clinton emulates much in the ways of conservatism. One of the bedrock principles of conservatism postulates that smaller governments tend to maximize efficiency.Shearingg off the levels of management and peeling back the levels ofbureaucraticc red-tape allow for a more fluid management; correspondingly, this premise states that it will aid the ability ofgovernmentt to act in a more dynamic, efficient manner. It is somewhat naive to conclude that conservatives are not highlydisappointedd and aggravated by the inability of government to provide in such a demanding time of need. It is not a dogmatic defense of President Bush's reaction as much as an aggravation with the system that President Bush must deal with. Hence, this mindset explains why conservatives look towards the leaders of the respective city and state governments in times such as this. Conservatives demand more from those leaders for they believe these leaders are in a better position to maximize the aforementioned efficiency; to better meet the needs of those they are closer to. As Hillary demonstrated, they are better able to control the situation for they are in a better situation to control and manage those under them. Hillary, in essence, is demanding the same accountability for FEMA that conservatives are demanding for their localgovernment'ss response. It is not an "attack" per se on these localized governments as much as it is adisappointmentt in their abject failure to realize the intimate relationship with their citizens. These governments know theircitizenss better than any President or any Congress or any federal government agency; and these local governments should not look at their role as 'blaming upwards' as much as they should be looking at themselves as the first and best response to a localized catastrophe. As Mrs. Clinton demonstrated, officials are better able to attentuate their constituents needs once they are in a closer, more intimate relationship with those needs.

Could this be why President Bush is calling for an investigation as well? It is clear that he is not happy with the response made by the government agency under his watch. But, that's just it, he was dealt the hand given him via the Department of Homeland Security. Many others, including Mrs. Clinton, are making calls for an investigation, and we will need them to better understand why things went the way they did. No one is asserting that this was handled, on any level, in a perfect manner. It is somewhat idealistic to demand perfection, much less, to demand perfection from government, nothing is ever carried out in a perfect manner. I believe many conservatives are angry with some of the rhetoric surrounding the calls for investigation, but they should not be with what the investigation will probably reveal.

Investigations should occur, and we should implement better management techniques for the future. Though, I think the answer has already been revealed for us all. Mrs. Clinton has already demonstrated the mentality that should be implemented in all levels of governmental management. Once you peel off the levels of government, you will begin to see more flexibility in the response time; efficiency, if you will. America understands the magnitude of the federal government and how much it takes to get the behemoth into action. Why does a minority of politicians berate one individual, as if this great biggovernmentt that is at the heart of their own ideology, were to be his fault? Does this not demonstrate hypocrisy? America understands that mistakes were made, but they also see that President Bush, under the circumstances he was given, did the best job under those circumstances. The latest poll numbers bolsters your humble pundits assertion.

Tyrannical Injustice

2005-09-09T10:00:00.000-07:00

Imagine that tonight, in stadiums all over the United States, Major
League Baseball games are disrupted by an invasion of football players, running
by dozens and hundreds out onto the diamonds.
"We want to play, too!" the
game-crashers cry.
"But this is baseball," a pitcher points out. "It's a
totally different game."
"Not fair!" the invaders insist. "We demand that
you let us play! And here, use our ball. Re-line the field. And play by our NFL
rules!"
"It won't work," says a shortstop. "You can't pitch pigskin."
"Foul!" scream the footballers to ESPN cameras. "Unsportsmanlike! Boycott
baseball!"
The crowd grows restless and bellows their deafening disapproval.
The umps' thumbs are flying: "You're outta the game!" But the helmeted Huns dig
in their cleats.
"These fans are narrow-minded!" they yell. "These umps are
bought and paid for! Where's the justice? What are these ballplayers so afraid
of?"
"Football-phobics?" read the morning sports pages, featuring photos of
outraged outfielders, shaking their fists at runningbacks spiking balls at home
plate.
Absurd? Maybe ... but a not-dissimilar scenario is unfolding all over
America as increasingly aggressive advocates of homosexual behavior demand
legal, moral and cultural endorsement of same-sex "marriage" and other aspects
of a demanding legal agenda.

An interesting sketch of what has become of our American legal landscape. Though this sounds utterly absurd to most all of my readers, how is this illustration that far-fetched when one genuinely ponders the activities of the ACLU? What really distinguishes thisportrayall from thehijinkss engaged in by the ACLU on an all to frequent basis here in the United States? Why are our 'norms' considered to be so heinous now in the present, damning everything historical? It is perplexing to fully grasp the magnitude of what organizations like the ACLU accomplish yearly here in America. Piece by piece, baby step by baby step, there tyrannical accomplishments erode the very fabric that has made this country what is to the rest of the world. It should be seen that those of us having a conservative/libertarian mindset are not able to fathom changes and any 'diversity' here within America. Do not fall back upon such a naive outlook on our ideological perspective. It is the callous obstruction of our lives, and our being forced to embrace that which we choose not to engage in ourselves that invigorates the aggravation within us. As stated in 'Ogre's Politics and Views,'

That's the ACLU's position when it comes to marriage. They don't like the
rules, so they want to change them. They don't care about the umpires, players,
or even the fans, they just want to have their way, and everyone else be damned.
When it comes to marriage, the ACLU doesn't care about the laws -- the ACLU
tells people to disobey the law. They don't care about the democratic process --
they want their agenda enforced, no matter what the people vote for. And they
don't care about public health -- they ignore any and all medical, physical, and
psychological effects of marriage.

I could not agree more...is this not the basic underpinnings of tyranny?

DENIED

2005-09-08T16:10:00.000-07:00

"At the very moment that Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans, was screaming where's the food, where's the water, it was over the overpass [nearby], and state officials were saying you can't come in," Garrett said.

It woud seem as though there was an inexplicable lack of communication between the city and state officials when such communication desperately needed.

"The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security blocked a vanguard of Red Cross trucks filled with water, food, blankets and hygiene items from bringing relief to the thousands of hungry and thirsty evacuees stranded in the New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina struck...."

What is the reasoning behind such actions, and could there be a plausible explanation?

"Garrett told nationally syndicated talk host Hugh Hewitt that according to the Red Cross, the delivery was blocked immediately after the storm passed Monday. The Louisiana governor's office of Homeland Security explained to the Red Cross that they didn't want the relief supplies, because they wanted the evacuees to leave, according to Garrett."

Dastardly deeds....are our leaders justified in playing such trivial games with human life? Do they have the moral authority to deny substinence to live to encourage those to leave a city? Then, to self-righteously lash out at those trying to help for not helping. What sheer hypocrisy, and what transparent foolishness. Yet, those on the left want to lay all of the injustices that this natural disaster has brought about at the feet of President Bush.....is this not hypocritical, as well? Maybe, had the state officials, at the urging of President Bush, called for the evacuation when he pleaded with them, this tragedy could have been averted. But with such negligence, one can only speculate...

Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL)

2005-09-06T17:20:00.000-07:00

Why should you be concerned and learn more regarding the junior senator from Florida? NewsMax is reporting that he is in strong contention to fill the chair currently occupied by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Introspective Analysis

2005-09-04T17:43:00.000-07:00

On a warm September morning four very short years ago, Americans were left with a broken heart and did not know what lay in store for us as we moved to pick up the pieces and pursue a course of action. Yet, we resoundingly met the challenge with our heads held high. The mending of our broken heart instilled within us all a mysterious unity and it brought us all closer than we had been in quite sometime.

The events unfolding on September 11, 2001, particularly, how we responded to the devastation wreaked by the fanatical barbarians should serve as a template of how we should react to Katrina. It should not even warrant a reminder, but even some of the most optimistic individuals amongst us are beginning to grow tired with some of the rhetoric emanating from partisan idealogues. Fomenting hatred and planting the seeds of unrest when America should be coming together should be the farthest from any human beings mind, yet the discourse as promulgated by those on the left side of the aisle has sunken well beyond what should even be construed as rational. Do not mistake this retort as being naive, for, in any event, and any event of this particular magnitude, mistakes are made. It is a natural part of life that humans are infallible. Though, what is most unfortunate about all of this, cumulatively including the destruction of life and property is the way in which the vitriolic poison is spewed. The burden of proof is insurmountable because this President is painted with such preposterous accusations as he is responsible for Global Warming and the supposed lackluster response to the tragedy. Both are absurd, one for the mental gymnastics one must engage and the unrealistic demand that instantaneous gratification be attained for the other.

What makes the hatred transparent is the honing in on President Bush as the solitary figure conceivably responsible. Other leaders have been intimately involved for quite some time with New Orleans, Louisiana. Where is the culpability for there lack of response to the needs of their constituents? As noted by 'The Right Track' and scores of other pundits, Mayor C. Ray Nagin has been anything but gallant in his response to Hurricane Katrina. With an heir of self-righteousness, he has lashed out with poisonous barbs attempting to shift any and all scornful eyes from his own actions throughout some of the darkest hours of his city's long history. Contrastingly, on that September morning four years ago, the mayor of New York inspired a nation. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani rightfully earned the title 'Mayor of America' and aided America in mending her broken heart. Casting aside any personal political preferences and ideologies, Mayor Giuliani should be enshrined as the quintessential model in political leadership during times of strife.

As in all of life's darkest hours, evaluation of performance should and must be done in order to prevent setting a course with a similar destiny. Let us truly evaluate what we need to do in order to learn and grow as human beings. This is not the time for shenanigans and pageantry, it is not time for transparent bickering and for fomenting one's own selfish hatred. Collectively, this nation is above such petty games, our history clearly demonstrates such. Let us help our fellow Americans and move forward, analyzing all the while what we need to do to preserve, next time, our life, liberty and happiness. Let us have a true measure of introspective analysis, our hearts and minds should be pure and not dwell on political advantage during such infamy.

Economics 101

2005-09-04T16:33:00.000-07:00

For those of you in the audience who understand some of the basic tenets and principles of Economics, this should come as no surprise; yet it is unfortunate some will not understand these basic supply & demand principles and decry your humble pundit for endorsing such vile practices.

For the sake of understanding how our Economy works on a daily basis, take a second to read Jerry Taylor's latest: Gouge On. As always, please let me know what you think...

Farewell, Chief Justice Rehnquist

2005-09-04T15:59:00.000-07:00

Amidst our ongoing struggle with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we should take time to reflect that we have lost one of our greatest justices to ever sit on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away late last night after a long, hard-fought struggle with thyroid cancer.

Undoubtedly, Chief Justice Rehnquist will be remembered for his extraordinary career and jurisprudential prowess. It will be exceedingly difficult for any person to fill the chair left by our passing Chief Justice.

As Wendy Long discusses in a recent National Review eulogy/editorial:

"The chief instilled a high tone of collegiality and respect at the Court, even in this period when the justices were deeply and bitterly divided over fundamental issues. My former boss, Justice Clarence Thomas, used to remark how wonderful it was that the justices could engage in sharp constitutional debates while still maintaining civility and real friendship, largely because the chief's example reminded them that they were part of an institution of American government much greater than themselves. Chief Justice Rehnquist's ability to set this tone for the deeply divided Court is even more remarkable when contrasted with the incivility that has taken hold in another deeply divided institution across the street Â the U.S. Senate."

My personal adoration for Chief Justice Rehnquist stems from something Ms. Long stated more eloquently than I could attempt,

"Chief Justice Rehnquist led the Court back toward a proper respect for the role of the states in our federal system, in the Court's decisions on the 11th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and habeas corpus. He also helped steer the Court toward a more proper understanding of the Establishment Clause, which was included in the Constitution to protect religion from congressional action not to remove religion from the public square. In 2002, for example, this important restoration of the Constitution led a majority on the Court to uphold Cleveland's school-voucher program, including vouchers for religious schools, thus providing increased educational opportunities for low-income children."

It was Chief Justice Rehnquist's march towards a proper understanding of federalism and what it entailed from a legal perspective that will establish him as one of thpreeminentnt jurist to ever sit on the court. In the coming years we will truly see to what extent hiindeliblele mark will do for our American jurisprudential landscape.
____________________________________________________________________
Bush nominates Judge John Roberts to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist......I, for one, have previously express how wary conservatives should be; and I am quitdisappointeded with President Bush on this matterJudgege Roberts has an impeccable resume, but as we have noted to great extent, this resume does not necessarily demonstrate that he will fulfill President Bush's campaign promises to nominate justices of the caliber of Scalia and Thomas. Only time will tell, but as stalwartrt constituent of this president, should I have to 'wait and see' on an issue of this magnitude?
_____________________________________________________________________
With a spirit of 'compassion' and 'humility,' the far left continues to illustrate why they are slowly embracing their irrelevancy in our modern political forum. 'Right Wing News' has conducted a sleuthing operation, going behind 'enemy' lines, if you will, to uncover commentary from our colleagues on the left side of the aisle. Judge for yourself whether these comments are proper as a nation begins to mourn a great man.

Illuminating

2005-09-03T06:47:00.000-07:00

'The Violence Worker' has uncovered quite an unnerving story. When we speak of the worst that humanity has to offer, this is definitively illustrative of such actions.

Yet another example of how this natural disaster is being manipulated by the left, 'The Right Track' has poignantly highlighted a fiendish assertion made by a civil rights guru. In such times of nearly insurmountable grief, why do some partisans attempt to twist this into a political posture?

I Don't Know Why....

2005-09-03T06:45:00.000-07:00

...it bothered me that the media was deeming that the distraught citizens of New Orleans were 'refugees,' and it may be mere semantics, but......they are not 'refugees.'

Americans being Americans

2005-09-01T16:03:00.000-07:00

For anyone looking for a way to aid their fellow Americans through these troubling times. The accompanying links should provide a bountiful place to start. To all of those visiting Publius Rendezvous, please feel free to include additional means and avenues through which we all can work together to help our fellow Americans. (via 'trackback,' 'comments' or e-mail at rendezvous.publius@gmail.com) I would encourage anyone and everyone to notify us of how we can better connect to those on the Gulf Coast. Our prayers our with them and we wish to give that much more.

American Red Cross
Technorati Tags:
Flood Aid
Hurricane Katrina
HurricAid
Michelle Malkin
Ogre's Politics and Views

Hospitality

2005-08-31T20:52:00.000-07:00

"In response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard has been mobilized with troops coming from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to assist in the emergency response. But with National Guard troops already spread thin across Iraq and Afghanistan, how much more can the National Guard take?"

And, these comments are merely some of the tame rhetoric slowing gaining traction and momentum from the left.

"Bush was warned of something like this happening, and when it came time to give a paltry sum to prevent just such a disaster, the money wasn't there- it was being spent in Iraq. (side Note- the cash might have been there, even taking Iraq into consideration, had Bush not rammed his tax cuts for the richest 1% of our country through congress.) The hurricane was a natural disaster- but the flooding of New Orleans wasn't- it wouldn't have happened, had the levies held. The levies didn't hold because THEY WEREN'T COMPLETELY AND ADEQUATELY BUILT, for lack of funds.Funds withheld by Bush, so he could continue this illegal war in Iraq."

Unfortunately, it is a sad day in America for several reasons, those on the left never cease to amaze your humble pundit on the lengths they will endure to chastise our current President.

With all due respect to an opposing opinion from the left, let us for once put down our proverbial arms in this discourse, and engage a common enemy, mother nature. Yet, it would seem as though the devestation inflicted by Hurricane Katrina is not an act of God, but yet another of the left's devilish examples of how this Administration will not rest until we are all annihilated.

Sometimes, one's own words speak for themselves. I think my fellow Americans can make up their own individual minds on where our priorities should lie and what now is important.

Only a Matter of Time...

2005-08-31T09:10:00.000-07:00

Somehow, one knew it would only take a matter of time before stories such as this would start circulating about the various media outlets. Though it is unforutnate and reprehensible, one should not just duck the obvious just because it is unpleasant to view and realize. Michelle Malkin & 'Red State Rant' do a thorough job highlighting some of the more obvious perceptions one should draw from this coverage of the looting taking place in New Orleans.

Lest we all forget in this discussion, much of the Gulf Coast is going through perilous and monumental times. Curiously, eerily close to the eve of the fourth anniversary of September 11, 2001, images making there way from the Deep South resurrect some of those same raw emotions experienced nearly four years ago. Personally, it has been quite difficult to take-in all of these images and stories of utter catastrophe and the accompanying heartbreak.

This should not be the time or place for such assertions and accusations of racism, yet there are individuals in this world who will not rest until everything that can be utilized in their own selfish desires is indeed used and accordingly cast aside. The images of those looting should not be seen in the black and white of any person's skin color, but should be seen in whatever color depicts the most evil in all of human race. Only parasites and pestilence prey off the wounded and sick, and for those locusts to be doing such now represents the worst of us in humanity. Though this is a stark reminder, it is illustrative of what we need not forget in our every day lives. Remembering such will aid us as we mature throughout our lives. However, for every story of such sinister behavior, one should know that their are countless acts of heroism and unselfish giving going on perpetually.....

This is the story, Americans helping their fellow Americans; just as this symbolism of the American spirit was what emanated from September 11, 2001, so shall this be the story throughout Hurrcane Katrina's devastation and aftermath. Americans being what we have always been will be the story to inevitably triumph. The American spirit will carry the day.

The Former Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-30T17:30:00.000-07:00

The metamorphosis that has become the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon began with her being a rational, sorrowful mother being the quintessential example of what a dissenting American should, and, for that matter, has always been. Her unfortunate disposition could have been illustrative of the ideal means through which Americans should treat their fellow Americans when they disagree with their ideas and beliefs. She fundamentally disagreed with the war and with President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but she stood with the President even after the unfortunate death of her son. However, something within the woman fundamentally changed. This evolution was nothing short of dynamic and it is now escalating into the realm of theatrics. She now must rely on her new statements to supersede her previously uttered sadistic statements to retain the attention she currently enjoys. Her statements must be exceedingly outrageous and her acts more damning in order for her to sustain the current audience she retains.

At first these rants were offensive and taken personally by supporters of this country and the troops that defend it. She unabashedly insulted our country and way of life even going as far as to embolden the actions of those we are fighting in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan began her short trek towards irrelevancy as she began lobbing barbs and accusations that a Jewish cabal was running this gambit; and in some form or fashion we have all been bamboozled into falling for this charade. With the arrival of Reverend Sharpton, her newest statements ensure that she has lost sight of a message that had the potential to resonate with Americans who mourned with a mother of a fallen hero. Somehow, this message of grief and misunderstanding has become poisoned by those who have their own selfish desires, and in their own minds the ends will justify these means. Alas, Ms. Sheehan has slipped past this outpouring of sympathy and scorned even those that would have given her an ounce of credence from which to build a story. These newest statements emanating from the ditches of Crawford, TX are nothing short of asinine; frankly, these statements do indeed invoke pity from your humble pundit for Ms. Sheehan cannot possibly be of sound mind by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Whether it be from grief or blind rage, it matters not because anyone that is now invoking some form of channeling to insult our Commander-in-chief does not deserve serious consideration for comment. Ms. Sheehan claims that her son is calling President Bush an 'idiot' and that the angels of Heaven are against this war....

Nevertheless, according to the mainstream press and those on the left, we are not supposed to question this woman's motives, nor are we supposed to demand a rational statement from her since she is a distraught, mourning mother who has nothing but the purest of intentions amidst the unbearable grief of losing her own flesh and blood. But, dare I say, what of the mother's who have lost sons and daughters to this war and remain steadfast behind our President? What of them? Are we not mandated to hear their plea as well? There should be absolutely no inclination of a double-standard amid such an important discourse, yet the unfortunate conclusion to be had is that this double-standard does indeed exist within our own mainstream media outlets and from those fervently on the left.

Their is no cohesive and manageable message emanating from the left and Ms. Sheehan's actions demonstrate this concept flawlessly. As seen throughout the blogoshphere, she is soon to begin her 'long, perilous journey' to Washington, D.C. to continue the protest of this war. As RightOn! has noted among many other bloggers, she will soon engage in actions “to protest the false god idolatry of the Blue Angels Air Show, whose “ooh-&-aah” performances have one purpose: to promote badly-lagging military recruitment to protest the obscene waste of American tax dollars to stage these Blue Angels’ multi-million dollar extravaganzas” - among other “war reissuesssues.”

Conclusively, we on the right are faced with blind rage and raw emotion from those on the left. This has become more than their rhetoric for it has become their mantra. Pure hatred has blinded those with enough cognitive ability to formulate a message. It is with such that we all should feel eternally grateful to Ms. Sheehan, she is illustrative of how Americans should not act, her message has lost any and all decency when she lashes out with selfish indignation. Americans should be united together in any cause after everyone has spoken and a decision was made. We have made that decision, let us move on.

To those on the left, bring us a resolution, bring us a solution, bring us something that could conceivably form a strategy for America's own interest. Do not bring us grief. America knows what war is about, we are not naive. Do not incessantly berate the American populace with the wails of a mother who derides us all at every chance a microphone or camera is thrown before her. For once, keep your perversion outside of our range of senses, this mother is being warped and used for any and every chance that you deem fitting. What happened diagram'sgreeing mother who grieved, but remained united behind her son's fallen comrades?

We on the right mourn the withering away of the former Cindy Sheehan...

New Orleans Braces

2005-08-28T19:19:00.000-07:00

May our thoughts and prayers go out this evening to the residents of New Orleans.

As the accompanying links illustrate, New Orleans has not seen the likes of such a storm in many years. What awaits the 'Big Easy' is beyond most of our collective imaginations. Let us hope that these predictions now circulating the mainstream media are sensationalized; and most importantly that the lives of those individuals remaining in the city of New Orleans be spared.

Batten down the hatches, New Orleans, we are praying for you! God Bless!

Hurricane Katrina's Death Toll And Flooding Damage Mount
Dangerous Hurricane Katrina nearing the Gulf Coast - video
Expert: What to expect from Katrina
Katrina Tracking Map -- See It Here
WIND ZONES
WeatherBlog
Praying for New Orleans
The Daily Blogster
Michelle Malkin - Hurricane Katrina Blogging
Miles O'Brien's Hurricane Blog
New Orleans Braces for Monster Hurricane
Mandatory Evacuation Ordered for New Orleans
Louisianans Rushing to Dodge Hurricane
AP: COULD LEAVE 1 MILLION HOMELESS...
NEW ORLEANS, LA RADAR
MOBILE, AL RADAR
Katrina Cuts Oil Output by a Third
Slideshow: Katrina's First Strike
The Violence Worker

Am I Alone?

2005-08-27T13:57:00.000-07:00

Let me preface this post by saying fervently: I do not condone the methodology and logic through which Pat Robertson made his statements earlier this week. I do not condone activities that would have our renowned leaders of significant segments in America's mainstream to verbally, and in an utterly outright fashion call for an assassination of other nations' leaders. This is a dangerous proposition and it is one step down a slippery slope. Our clandestine services are best left for our entertainment in movies and for our elected leaders when this country faces dire times and desperate hours.

With such stated, it remains somewhat ironic that your humble pundit honestly understands why such backlash is occurring all the while remaining intrigued as to how far and how much this man is being persecuted. Let us take an intellectually honest walk to evaluate this phenomenon. Of course, those on the left side of the aisle immediately scorned Robertson and when such venom reached a crescendo, those on the right side of the aisle took heed to put a substantive distance between his statements and themselves. Though, it is promulgated here that this 'issue' should be seen from a different angle and a fundamentally different perspective. Hence, yours truly believes this 'issue' should be correlated in some form or fashion to what is going on in the UK as we speak. This, of course, referencing what the OliveOylo blog has done a thorough job of documenting; the UK's novel policy for deporting terrorists who speak out against the their struggle against terror. Elsewhere, it has been seen that this is generating a great deal of consternation from those on the left side of the aisle and their respective allies, who denounce such 'evil-intentioned' methods of handling terrorists on one's home soil.

I honestly understand why Robertson is drawing fire for I am not naive. He is a leader of a large, viable group of Americans who generate a great deal of respect in every election cycle. This is why his rhetoric was careless and borderlines danger. Make no mistake, he deserves the backlash that he has been receiving purely for the fact that this 'issue' should be outside of his forum. It is outside the fora of our Christian, moral leaders to be so engaged in rattling swords against foreign despots. Not only is is careless, it does nothing more than diminish what little legitimacy that he himself and his group have in the 'mainstream.' I urge Pat Robertson to refrain from such in the future.

However, what is somewhat troubling to yours truly on this issue and the surrounding backlash is the double-standard imposed upon Robertson. I do not think there were any major conservative pundits or any of our Republican leaders that came out to show their support and adoration for Robertson in these statements. No one has in any way come close to showing an inkling of support for such rhetoric. This contrasts other elements found in our discourse for it should be abundantly clear that amongst those on the right side of the aisle, a great distance was separated from Robertson and he was inevitably chastised in synonymous ways by the supporters of the right side of the aisle; not only in the blogoshpere but elsewhere. In other words, conservatives did not embrace his rhetoric, nor did they stand behind him from a distance thereby endorsing in any way his careless rhetoric. It was clearly ascertained that conservatives did not condone such rhetoric.

The correlation should now come full-circle for those that will indulge in this intellectually honest walk....how is that we are supposed to accept and not come close to reject the venom and rhetoric of certain Muslim leaders? We cannot hold them accountable to standing behind their statements and also endorsing fellow statements made by their clerics by not fervently denouncing them for not admonishing these barbaric extremists. What is going in the UK now is nothing short of hypocrisy. The Islamic leaders have been literally preaching against our Western civilization for years and the UK has steadfastly ignored such vitriolic venom, but at the first signs of this rhetoric being espoused through actions of terror, the UK is finally aroused to demand they stop or leave. What ensues is nothing short of pure lunacy when the Muslim community denounces such tactics engaged to protect innocent civilians.

Furthermore, what would happen here in the United States? What if we engaged in some of this same tactics employed by the UK? As reported by 'Another Man's Meat,' a flyer being passed around the ditches of Crawford Texas clearly illustrates groups showing 'aid and comfort' to our enemies in Iraq. Why are the pundits not lining up to demand cessation of synonomous rhetoric from their colleagues. In the least, their bashing and transparent rhetoric is, at best, disingenuous. From the blogoshpere to the 'mainstream' this is carefully ignored.

The accompanying political cartoon is meant to be comical, but it also clearly illustrates that we on the conservative/libertarian side of the aisle do not take such rhetoric seriously when our leaders are careless enough to make them. Why then does the Cindy Sheehan orgy get a free pass when such rhetoric is continuously uttered? What makes them different? Endorsement of this rhetoric and any of the rhetoric being seen to fruition would destroy any and all progress made in the War on Terror.

This double standard that most of those on the left endorse is nothing short of a mockery of our privileges bestowed within our First Amendment and it is hypocrisy in every conceivable definition of the word. How far down this road must we travel before their eyes will be opened?
____________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: Does this not illustrate what this is about? Is it really about the death of her son anymore? Are her intentions pure? Alas, this may not be for you or I to decide lest we come across judgemental. However, it does not make it any easier as a human being when you see things such as this and this.

Keep Up the Great Work

2005-08-25T15:07:00.000-07:00

The far-left continues to travel a road that will inevitably lead to the 'ash heap of history' where other irrelevant and unaccomplished ideologies eternally rest.

Protestors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. have sunk to what should be an unfathomable low in their efforts to bring about an end to the Iraq War. These shenanigans are definitively illustrative of what the far-left in this country has become. What has and what is currently transpiring is nothing short of a sickening display of antics and a selfish manipulation of suffering for their own personal cause. These protestors could not conceivably have any valid rational or plausible explanation as to how or why this activity should be continued.

What is to be gained from such blatant disrespect for soldiers of this country and a fervent lack of remorse for their own actions inflicting emotional harm on men and women attempting to recover from wounds suffered in unselfish sacrifice? What is to reasonably gained from such rhetoric as: "Maimed for a Lie" in front of a bustling hospital.....?! At what point is enough truly enough. The average American views such visceral rhetoric and becomes nauseated, yet these individuals remain steadfast in their efforts to win support for their cause all the while they are damning this cause. It is nearly common sensical to someone of reasonable intellect to attenuate that such rhetoric would assuredly push away those that may be willing to listen to their perspective.

However, do not misconstrue any of these aforementioned statements and assume that America should somehow stifle this rhetoric. Undeniably, this display is guaranteed by our constitution's first amendment. All in all, what should be taken from this pathetic display is that any American has a right to freedom of speech, but any American does not have the right to be heard.

What line must be crossed in order for the far-left to state that enough is enough? It would be in their own best interest for their own base to distance themselves from such displays stating all the while what their message truly is and how this is a perversion of that message. Sadly, as we all have grown accustomed to and realized, the far-left embraces such antics. From the escalation of exploiting Cindy Sheehan (and now Reverend Al Sharpton) to Walter Reed Hospital, the far-left continues their trek down the long road of irrelevancy. Cumulatively, it seems as though nothing is beyond the realms of basic human dignity for these individuals. Unfortunately, the arrogance of their own self-righteousness has blinded them of any and all dignity.

And, those in the center and far-right are supposed to be persuaded to follow this ideology from these statements and displays? What is a reasonably prudent person supposed to gather from this message? It is surely not compassion and it is quite disingenuous to assert that genuine peace should be taken away from this hateful message.

[As an individual that personally disagrees with your message, all I have to say is....Keep Up the Great Work! You are doing my job for me. I think these actions will swell my ranks before they work at gravitating any individual toward yours.]

A Mere Second of Your Precious Time....

2005-08-24T20:11:00.000-07:00

The Right Track has linked to quite an interesting site that allow any individual to take the 'World's Smallest Political Quiz.' Take a moment of your time, whether interested in current events & politics or not, to find where you fall on the political spectrum. It will be curious to see how visitors of this site faired on the quiz. Take a second to leave us a comment on what your results reveal after you have taken the quiz.

(For those that are curious, Publius Rendezvous scored as a 'Conservative,' [Nothing surprising about this, as my readers I am sure know]; yet the results were much closer to Libertarian than what was personally expected. [See accompanying graph] This just goes to show how interesting this quiz really is.)

Guess Who's Back

2005-08-24T09:54:00.000-07:00

"I'm coming back to Crawford for my son. As long as the president, who sent him
to die in a senseless war, is in Crawford, that is where I belong. I came here
two and a half weeks ago for one reason, to try and see the president and get an
answer to a very simple question: What is the noble cause that he says my son
died for?"

To hear more from this megalomaniac, follow this link for her own words.

It sounds quite harsh, but is this really about her own grief anymore? It is preposterous for any one person to make such a turnabout and expect such demands to be fulfilled. It is almost as if she has the intellect of a child and the selfishness to boot. What I find interesting to note is the growing movement of 'anti-' anti-war protesters. It seems as though fellow 'red-staters' grow weary of such foolhardy, hate-America-first, rhetoric.

Outside the Mainstream

2005-08-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

An interesting article that one wonders will be worthy of mention this week in the 'mainstream' press. If it does not, it just goes to show how the stem-cell debate is not really about stem-cells. Most of the proponents for embryonic stem-cells derive from the crowd seeking abortion on demand. If any legitimacy to life is seen in embryos, then this undercuts the foundation on which abortions rests. Also, any divisiveness that can be exploited by the Democrats and their willing cohorts in the press amongst the Republicans would need to be buried on the back page of the headlines.

If the stem-cell debate is really about stem cells, should this not be a blocbuster story since both sides would then be appeased? We shall have to wait and see.

It will be interesting to see if this research is given a fair shake, or at least if it will garner as much publicity as Senator Frist's turnabout on an issue that, until recently, had him standing behind President Bush.

'Biteback'

2005-08-21T13:43:00.000-07:00

This editorial resonates with themes that are discussed here at Publius Rendezvous. A very poignant look at some of the issues that are currently in the news; Victor Davis Hanson's latest is a 'must-read' for this week.

Socially Insecure

2005-08-21T13:33:00.000-07:00

An interesting perspective on an issue slowly slipping off the radar in the American political/current events forum. Why is the basic premise of the Social Security issue staunchly entrenched with the approach that me must keep the program viable? No party, on either side of the aisle, is proposing dismantling this inefficient program; we must endure the fact that both parties wish to 'tweak' the system in order to maintain the status quo. Should not Americans have the benefit of the facts being laid bare in order to make a fully informed decision? Without such a discussion the status qua ante remains what we must endure, depriving us of the efficiency of our own decisions or lack thereof. Americans are not forced to practice such in the private sector, then why must we be forced in the governmental sector?

An intellectually honest approach to the debate illustrates that universally, Social Security leaves much to be desired in the results it yields to its patrons. IS this fair to all of us when considering what is at stake? Why must this issue be spun until the point where it morphs into something that it is not? Herein, we have a governmental program not accomplishing what it was intended to do. The American people deserve better, to say the least. It is not that one party wishes to rob the system and desire ill on others, it is that this party is demanding that American people get what they rightfully deserve. In such, this party is not even going far enough; instead of scrapping the program, we must readjust our rationale to fix a 70-year-old problem.

It is absurd, and unfortunate that nothing can be discussed lest it be spun out of proportion. No one is attempting to, nor would want to 'rob' anyone of their deserved and earned payment, but this is what is being promulgated. In fact, it should be asserted and demanded that the factually correct statements be allowed. Americans should not be utilized as pawns in a simple game pitting raw emotion versus fact & reason. Americans are brighter than this, and with such, deserve better than mere political antics. Let us have a true discussion, save the grandstanding.

Civilized

2005-08-20T05:30:00.000-07:00

"This retreat does not mean the end of our battle, but it is the beginning..."

Yes, alas, this was stated by one of the 'peaceful' members from the military-wing of Hamas. It is unfortunate Israelis must go through such consternation and strife just to illustrate the uncivilized nature of these barbarians. With a good faith effort, Israel has made one of her most noble and extensive sacrifices since her move home to the holy land. Pray that it is just rhetoric coming from extremists, but it appears that this effort made by the Israelis may all be in vain. The correlation with the United States is strong for these are these are barbarians of the same stripe that we deal with in Iraq in an ongoing basis; and it further illustrates that if you approach a bargaining table and satisfy their selfish desires that they still will not be satisfied. But, as other have noted, will it ever be quenched, will these selfish desires know no bounds?

Disabled Commission

2005-08-18T05:19:00.000-07:00

"I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."

These statements seemed out of place and surely did not fit the normal rhetoric concerning the current events of the day. However, these statements coupled with the traction gaining momentum surrounding 'Able Danger' illustrate why President Clinton uttered them in the first place. 'Able Danger' was a special intelligence group that discovered some of the terrorist cells that inevitably carried out the 9/11 attacks. Jamie Gerelick's now infamous 'wall' between domestic crime fighting agencies and foreign intelligence services prevented the army from passing along this information; thus, conceivably leading to events unfolding on 9/11. Though, in all fairness, the blame cannot and should not be beholden upon one individual. It was the culmination of many mantras and attitudes pervasive throughout this country before our eyes were opened.

Should not conspiracy theorists leap at this instance, though? Here, we have definitive proof that the 9/11 commission specifically chose to ignore this information, or at least the staff members of the respective members. Furthermore, specifically a former Clinton Administration official's own edict denounces a crucial link to apprehend the 9/11 terrorists before they could carry out the atrocities. Days ago it was asked here: 'What if this were President Bush?' Would the same reaction be garnered if the respective party designations were rearranged?

This piece, by no stretch of the imagination, is meant to turn this issue into a partisan tirade where the Clinton Administration's legacy is debated. Really, this is meant to open a dialogue and to ascertain why such vehement hatred is promulgated to destroy any effort made on behalf of the Bush Administration to counter our national security threat. Dare it be stated that this is no less than basic human hypocrisy by those on the left?

Stories such as the following deserved to be reconciled. If 'Bush took us to war for oil' then why do you not legitimately embrace 'Clinton was too busy with Monica?' Why are there two different standards by the 'mainstream' media and the liberal fringe when it comes to the War on Terror? Is foreign policy and national security issues where politics should be fair game? This forum is here, why are there two very different standards? In light of this information just now making its way to the surface, the discourse should be open without finger pointing. America needs to learn what is the best way to prevent 9/11 from happening again. We are not playing games but it seems that we are when it is convenient for some.

Many others outside the 'mainstream' are asking some of the same questions. We may not be all of the same accord, but the discussion needs to begin.
QandO linked - Wish in one hand, read the 9/11 report in the other...
In the Bullpen - Clinton warned of bin Laden threat in 1996, new documents show
Iowa Voice - Able Danger And 9/11 Pt III
Mark in Mexico - Wall falls on 9/11 commission
MontereyJohn linked - I Give Clinton a (conditional) Pass
A Dusty Life - NYT: State Warned Clinton In '96 To Stop Bin Laden
Rip & Read Blogger - Rip & Read #137 - 2005-08-17
The Jawa Report - Clinton and the Sleeping Giant
JunkYardBlog - CLINTON'S COLE BLAMESHIFTING
voices.in.my.head - What do Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and Bin Laden have in common?
In Search Of Utopia - Bang, Bang....
OliveOylO - Coverup?

Just Do It, Already!

2005-08-16T19:48:00.000-07:00

Methinks that the media should just act on these complaints of their constituents. They seem widespread and of genuine merit. should not our concerns be their concerns as well? Are they, the media, not responsible to all of us or are they a class unto their own? Left & Right?

An interesting article, to say the least....