TNR Hack Demonstrates Hypocritical Double Standard of the Left

Peter Beinart, of The New Republic makes casual reference to his standard for racism in the course of making a case for Joe Biden staying in the presidential candidate race, "Biden Time" February, TNR.

He says "I have my own reasons for hoping Biden stays in the race. Partly, it's a broader principle: stupid, insensitive remark shouldn't sink political candidacies unless they bespeak some larger animus. George Allen's "macaca" comment mattered because, as Ryan Lizza has documented, Allen had a long history of racist sympathies. So did Trent Lott, long before he endorsed Strom Thurmond for president. Biden, by contrast, has another dumb remark on his record (this one about Indian Americans), but his long career in Congress suggests no sympathy for racists. Given that, he doesn't deserve the political death sentence. Journalists shouldn't be hypocrites: You can ask politicians to be unscripted and then decapitate them anytime they misspeak."

This is so wrong, on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. So let's take them in order: George Allen, if you believe the accounts of the left-wing media, is a dyed in the wool racist. Using it N-word as a 20 year-old college student, stuffing a deer's head in a black family's mailbox, etc.

OK, if this is proof of a man's character and automatically condemns him to a "political death sentence", why is Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Kux Klan, still in the Senate? Surely his history of proud racism (you don't join the KKK unless you're proud to be a racist), use of the N-word (to Brit Hume in a Fox interview in be late 90's ), night riding, lynching, burning crosses, all the things that the KKK is famous for, would condemn him to trek back to his little store in West Virginia? And remember, the fact that it was long ago does not matter. It didn't matter with George Allen. But no! Byrd remains firmly ensconced in the Senate and hacks like Peter Beinart do not say boo!

Moving on to Trent Lott, Beinart says that Lott "endorsed Strom Thurmond for president." In the first place this is factually incorrect, Strom Thurmond was not running President, therefore he could not be endorsed for president! He was having his 100th birthday party. Trent Lott was engaging in the hyperbole of someone who had been asked to say something good about the guest of honor at a party, that's all. And yet Beinart condemns him as a racist.


Now, to the most egregious example of hypocrisy in the entire article: Beinart says " Journalists shouldn't be hypocrites: You can't ask politicians to be unscripted and then decapitate them anytime they misspeak" is jaw dropping! This is exactly the kind of thing that journalists like Beinart do so well. Given that Beinart thinks he's a journalist and also thinks he is actually consistent in his moral pronouncements, the level of doublethink approaches Orwellian proportions.

Beinart, is just another far left hack writer in a mediocre, far left publication but he deserves watching because he is an example of the mendacity and tenacity of the Left.

Tom DeLay, In his Own Words

Chris Matthews, host of Hardball on MSNBC, went down to Texas and interviewed Congressman Tom DeLay, January 30th. LINK I think the interview is worth reprinting here. Not only to preserve the text but to show that DeLay is a tough but kind man who seems to hold no ill will toward his tormenters.

Of Trials and Indictments

Jan. 30: Chris Matthews kicks off Hardball's Decision 2006 coverage with an exclusive interview with Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas. Delay speaks about the fight he'll wage for his seat, his homestate's politics, and his involvement in the Abramoff scandal. Here is an excerpt of that interview. CHRIS MATTHEWS : Mr. Delay, how many times have you been elected down in this part of the country? TOM DELAY (R-Tex.): Oh mercy, ten times. MATTHEWS: Ten times. And here you are fighting a tough election. Do you think it’s going to be a tough one? DELAY: It’s going to be a very tough one. It’s going to be a national election. We have all the MoveOn.org’s down here. They’ve been down here for over a year. All the leftists groups have been down here…doing the telephones. This is a national campaign. MATTHEWS: Is the vote for this House seat, your seat, as a member of leadership and a very powerful Republican, is this about a national decision or is this about a local decision? DELAY: No, this is a national decision. The Democrats have been planning this for a long time. They announced it-they announced their politics of personal destruction two years ago and the character assassination is part of their strategy. They don’t have an agenda and so they’re trying to get the House back by destroying people and their families. MATTHEWS: Why do these rank and file Democrats make you a target? Why do they hate you? DELAY: Well I hope that they hate me because I’m effective, because I get things done. We’ve had an eleven year run of a Republican majority doing things that I’m incredibly proud of: cutting taxes, strong national defense, welfare reform, balancing the budget, paying down on the debt. I mean, one thing after another, we’ve been effective on it and the Democrats don’t like it. MATTHEWS: So you’ve got Ronnie Earle, the District Attorney down here, the prosecutor going after you, are you going to be able to get a trial out of him before the election? DELAY: Well I hope so. I have demanded my rights to a speedy trial; unfortunately Ronnie Earle is filing frivolous appeals to drag it out as long as he wants. He’s been dragging my name through the mud for three years now and he’s going to try to drag it out, try to influence the election, that’s the way he operates. MATTHEWS: Is he going to try to hold the election, I mean try to hold the trial, after the election? DELAY: He doesn’t care when you hold the trial, just so long as they don’t hold it before the election. MATTHEWS: Do you need an acquittal? To win the election; do you have to have an acquittal before the election to clear this air? DELAY: Oh, I would like one, but my constituents know what’s going on here. They’ve looked at this case, they understand it, they’ve been very very supportive they know what Ronnie Earle is-a runaway district attorney who is abusing his power, indicting me on laws that don’t exist. They understand what this is all about. And, and, then it’s also supported by all these leftist groups that are in here right now. The backlash is in my favor. MATTHEWS: He indicted you on one count and then he came back and indicted you again and then it turns out if first attempt to indict you failed-it was thrown out. DELAY: No, well, his first attempt to indict me was on a law that didn’t exist. And when he found that out he went to two other grand juries, uh, within four days, one of them "No Billed" me? That should have been the end of it. Then he got a brand new grand jury that didn’t even go through orientation and he got them to indict me on another law that didn’t make sense. MATTHEWS: How do you tell people down here that have voted for you all these times, that this problem is purely partisan? How do-do you have to sit one on one with people? Some people say where there’s smoke there’s fire. How do you convince them that it’s just smoke? DELAY: I don’t have to. They know who I am. They’ve worked very closely with me. I’ve worked very hard in this district to build infrastructure, to work on charities, to work with kids, to work with the poor, NASA, Ellington Field, all these things that I’ve worked with, local elected officials and my constituents, they know who I am. And they know this is all bogus. And the support I’m seeing over the past few weeks has proved it. MATTHEWS: Do you believe you’re going to be able to hold your base-your Republican base? DELAY: Oh absolutely. I mean, just last week alone I had five meet and greets packed. I went to six events that had over 400 people at each one of them. I got standing ovations just by being introduced at these organizations. We picked up 500 volunteers last week alone. We’re doing fine. MATTHEWS: Well what’s it feel like when somebody comes up to you and says what’s all this stink about? DELAY: They don’t. They know what it’s about. They don’t question me on it. MATTHEWS: The Abramoff thing in Washington, there’s a lot of your former staff people involved with him. Does that bother you? DELAY: Not at all. MATTHEWS: Michael Scanlon, people like that who you trusted are now right in the middle of this thing talking to the prosecutors. DELAY: I think that’s really unfortunate that they broke the law and they’ve been found guilty breaking it. I had nothing to do with that. I’ve done nothing wrong. I haven’t broken any laws. I have no problem. MATTHEWS: You don’t think that the prosecution will try to squeeze one of them, to try to get them to say something against you? DELAY: There’s nothing they can say against me unless they lie. I’ve had it all checked out by my lawyers and everything that we’ve done has a clean bill of health. Department of Justice has told my lawyers on several occasions that I’m not a target of this investigation. We have no problem here. All we have are leftist groups trying to create a sense of guilt by association in this case. They can not tell you or charge me with one thing that’s against the law or against the House rules or even unethical. MATTHEWS: What do you make about the Democratic opposition? Pelosi, she’s running for Speaker obviously, if they pick up fifteen seats she’ll be the candidate for Speaker. When I talked to your potential opponent, Mr. Lamson, he said I think rather carefully, he could see himself voting for Nancy Pelosi. DELAY: I’ll bet. MATTHEWS: What do you think-why is he being so careful? DELAY: Because Nancy Pelosi, MoveOn.org, George Soros, Howard Dean, not very popular people in the 22nd district of Texas and he’s going to try to do both which he’s always done in his career. Trying to appear to be moderate to conservative to the constituency and then go to Washington and be buddies with Nancy Pelosi, voting with her 90-95 per cent of the time. MATTHEWS: What happened to that old conservative, democratic tradition down here that’s going-those concerns have all become Republicans, right? DELAY: Conservative Democrats have all become Republicans.

The Scotland Trip and Golf

MATTHEWS: Do you expect George Bush senior or the president to come in and help you in this campaign? DELAY: Well we just had the vice president in just last month and raised a good amount of money for this. I’m very proud of that. Uh, I don’t know what the future holds as far as the president, but he’s very supportive. MATTHEWS: Are you worried that the Democrats will be able to use iconic pictures, that’s probably a fancy word, but graphic pictures like golfing in Scotland, to bring you down? DELAY: Oh sure they’ll try all of that. I mean they want to lie about what’s going on. I’m very involved in international affairs. That Israel is against the religious persecution in China; or for Taiwan-against China; getting persecuted Jews out of Russia. I’ve been involved in a lot of foreign affairs. Uh, yes, when I go over somewhere for that I take a day off or a half a day off and I play golf. MATTHEWS: But there’s no religious persecution in Scotland. DELAY: No, but Margaret Thatcher was in England and I met with a lot of conservative organizations trying to them win against the Labor Party. I was very involved with the conservative movement in England. MATTHEWS: So that picture of you-that picture we keep seeing of St. Andrews-I’m not much of a golfer but, you’re a better golfer obviously-but do you think that’s unfair to say that you went over there on a junket? DELAY: It’s incredibly unfair. MATTHEWS: Why? Who paid for the trip? DELAY: A legitimate conservative organization. MATTHEWS: But wasn’t there a pass through? DELAY: No, there was no pass through. MATTHEWS: They came up with the money themselves. DELAY: That’s exactly right. They raised their money themselves. MATTHEWS: That public policy group… DELAY: That’s exactly right. MATTHEWS: So you don’t have any problem with that trip? DELAY: Not at all. MATTHEWS: Nobody’s asked you about it down here. DELAY: Uh, not really, no. Actually, a lot of people play golf down here. MATTHEWS: But not in Scotland. DELAY: It’s good to play golf down here. MATTHEWS: But not in Scotland. DELAY: Many of them down here go to Scotland--- MATTHEWS: I mean everybody knows that you’re a tough Republican, conservative, who gives his life for the cause. You’re not in it for the money or the lifestyle. DELAY: Right. MATTHEWS: And I don’t even hear that from your critics, okay. But they say that you’re too tough, that you play too hard, that you cut the corners to get done what you have to get done politically like soft money, hard money, all that complicated stuff. DELAY: They hate it because they’re losing. I have built a huge coalition to support our agenda of a limited government, strong national defense, protecting American families against overactive judiciary. We have built big coalitions outside coalitions, grassroots operations to fancy that and get it done. Democrats hate it that I’m effective. They just hate it. And that’s just too bad, but we’re going to keep on working as hard as we can for the conservative agenda for the future of this country. MATTHEWS: Would you like to chair the Appropriations Committee? DELAY: No, I’d like to continue to advance our agenda. MATTHEWS: But since you’ve left leadership, do you intend to go back to leadership if you get re-elected? Do you intend to go back into that leadership world? DELAY: I don’t know. I’ve had ups and downs throughout my career. I have never lost focus on our agenda. So I’m going to work on our agenda.

The Coming Election

MATTHEWS: Okay, let me talk about your agenda down here in the 22nd.When Robert Byrd, the former Democratic leader, had served his time as leader he decided to find a new power base which was Chairman of Appropriations, so he could really deliver for West Virginia. He’s practically paved the danm state he’s built so much there, right? Do you think of that as your next career period where you aren’t formally in the leadership but you’re using your Appropriations Committee to help this district? DELAY: No. I’m focused of course on working with my district. There’s a lot of work to be done here and this is the highest growth area in the nation and we’ve got to have infrastructure here. And Johnson Space Center is incredibly important and we want to advance President’s agenda. Working through Homeland Security through Ellington Field here is very important. And many others, the medical center, the port, a lot of things I need to be working on. But I also work on the fact that I want to throw the tax code out and replace it with a national sales tax. I want to stop the judiciary from attacking and destroying American families. I want, I want to continue and win this war on terror and protect our borders and there’s so much more to do and I’m going to continue to do that. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your generosity. To build the Republican party and the congressional delegation, the Republican delegation here in Texas, you gave up a lot of Republican territory. DELAY: True. MATTHEWS: Do you wish you had held onto it? DELAY: No. MATTHEWS: You can still win this seat with a lot less Republican votes. DELAY: Sure. All you need is 51 percent to win. MATTHEWS: But you gave away a lot didn’t you? DELAY: I did. MATTHEWS: Why’d you do it? DELAY: I went from about a 63% district to a 55% district. MATTHEWS: Why were you so generous with other members? Because you actually created some new congressional opportunities? DELAY: Well first of all I had to show leadership in order to get other members to take less Republican districts so that you could spread the Republicans around over the whole state and if I didn't, if I didn't show myself as a role model, I couldn’t ask other members to give up their Republicans MATTHEWS: Would you rather run in your own district - when this court throws at you redistricting, you might end up in the old district with your old 2002 seat. DELAY: Nah, this, I mean, the base is still intact, I’m very solid with my base and the odds, we took on some union-type Democrats. Not enough for them to win the seat. MATTHEWS: What I’ve learned coming down here Congressman, I thought you’d have an all-white, you know Protestant whatever, Anglo community down here. You’ve got a helluva lot of diversity in this district. DELAY: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: You’ve got big numbers of African-Americans, big numbers of latinos. DELAY: Asians, huge numbers of Asians. MATTHEWS: I saw alot of that. DELAY: A lot of Asians, both Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Pakistanis, Hispanics, blacks, this is an incredible district. We have great diversity.

Working with Abused and Neglected Children

This is six years of raising private funds, of a dream that is actually my wife’s, that became mine, when she started working with abused and neglected children. We became foster parents and through that, saw how awful the government-run system is, and we designed a different way of taking care of foster children, giving them a safe permanent home. See right now in the system, they are moved from home to home to home. Our first foster child was in sixteen different homes in her teenage years. Here they come in and they move in here and that it. We will never kick them out, we will never move them out, if anybody gets moved out, it will be the foster parents. And when they turn eighteen, when the government says you’re on your own, they can come back. this is something we got from Israel - they can come back, we’ll have places for them to stay, they can visit their, you know, come back for Thanksgiving, Christmas, cry on a shoulder, whatever they want to come back to. It gives them a sense of permanency and MATTHEWS: What kind of families do they come from? DELAY: These are severely abused children. These are children that somebody’s stepfather has been raping her since she was three years old, beatings, mothers on drugs. MATTHEWS: So the kids are teens. DELAY: No, they’re usually coming here, they’re going to be from, we got twenty-seven on hand here, they’re anywhere from nine years old up to eighteen. Because these are children that nobody wants. They have issues, they don’t want them, they just warehouse them, and what we want to do is give them a safe permanent home and deal with their issues. MATTHEWS: And who are the adults here? DELAY: These are Christian foster parents that want to embrace children. MATTHEWS: I see. DELAY: That we have recruited. MATTHEWS: Young families? DELAY: Some young, mostly young, have their own families. Each house has a three-bedroom apartment inside the house, for the family and because dealing with these children is very taxing and they get burned out, so we want to make sure they can take time off and shut off part of their house, bring in a nanny to stay with the kids while they take the weekend off. In New York, when we were holding fundraisers to raise money for this, we anticipated raising about three million dollars. And then they killed all that by using what his name that is running for governor? For attorney general? MATTHEWS: Are people living here now? DELAY: Not in this house. We’ve got eight houses, six of them have kids in them now, we’re interviewing parents for these two houses, everything is designed with the kids in mind, as you can see each one of the bedrooms are all big. MATTHEWS: I’d like to live here! DELAY: Isn’t it nice? Each room so that you can watch the kids through their bedrooms but if they’re going to use the computer, they’ll be in there so you can see what they’re using it for, so its all designed so that you can interact with the kids. MATTHEWS: Do you have any crime problems? DELAY: Not out here no. MATTHEWS: The kids don’t misbehave that bad? DELAY: No, if you show them love and give them trust, they respond. If you just warehouse them, they don respond. they go in and get involved in bad things. MATTHEWS: Its pretty impressive DELAY: Its even larger than we dreamed MATTHEWS: What’s the larger community here? DELAY: There’s the county seat is Richmond Texas, and this county, this is where Texas started. Steven F. Austin settled this area. All the great Texans came from this area, this, where this place is right now is Fort Dade county and the bend of the river is right here and where the fork was, and so its a great longtime Texas history. MATTHEWS: So you actually live here in the 22nd? DELAY: Yup. MATTHEWS: And your opponent, your Democratic opponent, the guy who is probably going to win the Democratic nomination Nick Lampson, former Congressman, he lives outside the district? DELAY: He lives in Beaumont. MATTHEWS: And that’s outside the district. That’s pretty far from here. DELAY: He’ll claim to live in the district. ITs over 100 miles from here. He’s the only Democrat they’ve been able to get to run. MATTHEWS: Haven’t they encouraged him to move? DELAY: Oh of course and he claims the local address for his home. MATTHEWS: But that’s not where his bed is. DELAY: It’s not where his family is. MATTHEWS: Is that going to be an issue? DELAY: Well I dont know that its going to be an issue. MATTHEWS: You know in Massachusetts they call those guys mattress-draggers. They drag their mattresses from one district to another, looking for a seat. DELAY: Well I don’t know, I’m sure we’ll be able to explain that to my constituency during the upcoming election MATTHEWS: So this is Texas weather huh? DELAY: This is Texas winter. This is as bad as it gets. For the last four weeks, its been seventy-two degrees.

What Makes Tommy Run

MATTHEWS: Okay I’ve got to ask you a cosmic question, you’re Tom Delay. You’re not in this business for the money. You live modestly. You commute back and forth from Washington to Houston, Texas. Why? What drives you every day? DELAY: It’s what I believe in, the Constitution of the United States, Ronald Reagan got me involved in this. I fight every day for what I believe in: Strong national security, protecting the American family, values. I want to see this country led in a different direction than when I found it, when I got in politics twenty-some years ago. MATTHEWS: What’s it feel like to get up every morning knowing there’s a lot of Democrats and some prosecutors who may be Democrats themselves who get up every morning with the idea of bringing you down? DELAY: That’s their problem, not mine. I stay focused on what I’m trying to do for my district and for this state and for this country.

Alito Hearings, Senator Durbin's Opening Statements

Here is an advanced text of the opening statement by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Bugout-Ill.)

Judge Alito, I welcome you and your family to the Judiciary Committee. First, I would like to thank Chairman Specter for waiting until the new year to hold this hearing. Holding this hearing earlier would not have given us enough time to figure out our strategy for voting against you while at the same time making it seem like it is your fault. Why has this nomination risen to the level of historic importance? The Supreme Court has handed down 193 decisions over the past ten years that were decided by a 5-4 vote. Justice O’Connor was the fifth and deciding vote in 148 of these 193 cases. Time and again the vacancy you seek to fill was the most important vote on the Court for advancing the Bugout agenda. Justice O’Connor, the Justice whom you would replace if confirmed, was the fifth and decisive vote to safeguard Americans’ right to look at porn; the fifth vote to require our courtrooms to be accessible to the disabled; the fifth vote to allow the federal government to pass laws that allow the environmental wackos to triumph over common sense, the fifth vote to preserve the right of universities to place less qualified students in front of more qualified student because of their color; the fifth vote to ban the execution of serial murderers under 18 years old in America. And Justice O’Connor was the fifth vote to uphold the time-honored principle of shutting the church out of politics. Justice O’Connor has been the critical decisive vote on many issues that go to the heart of the Bugout agenda. The person who fills the O’Connor vacancy will truly tip the balance of the scales of Bugout values in America. For that reason, Judge Alito, your nomination is one of the most important Supreme Court nominations in a generation. Yesterday the Chicago Tribune editorialized that anyone who questions your nomination has a heavy burden of proof. I disagree. You have proven yourself completely unfit for the Bugout Party's plans for an America ruled by the Bugouts. My friend, Illinois Senator Paul Simon, once said the test for a Supreme Court nominee is not where he stands on any one specific issue. The real test is this: will you use your power help us, or hinder the Bugout Party in the coming years? I believe that is the right test, because the Supreme Court is the last refuge of our agenda, God knows we can't get the American People to go along with it.. In my lifetime, the Supreme Court has allowed mothers to kill their children, allowed cities to take land from private citizens for private development, and established the principle that our government should respect the values of the Bugout Party. These decisions are the legacy of justices who chose to expand our, Bugout, agenda as much as possible. If you are confirmed, Judge Alito, will you continue their legacy? No? I suspected as much.

Note: The Bugout Party is now the name for the Democratic Party. Bugout derives from the phrase, "bugging out", used during the Vietnam War, and means to scuttle away from a battle, even when you are winning. The Democrats have earned this title by constantly yelling that we should get out of Iraq, and constantly denying what is plain to the troops, that we are winning.

An Essay by Walter Williams, Edited So That Non-PHDs Can Understand It.

Walter Williams is a brilliant guy, and he has something to say. Below is a COLUMN he wrote for the Washington Times. It has been edited so that dumasses like you and me can understand better. The word quintile has been changed to fifth. Economists divide income earnings into five catagories from lowest to highest and call them "quintiles". But this is just another word for one fifth of the whole enchilada. Since most people know what a fifth of whiskey is, I thought I would use fifths instead of quintiles.

Imagine five bottles of whiskey, each sitting on a shelf by itself, one above another. These represent the income earnings catagories from lowest to highest. The bottle on the bottom is filled is with Old Red Eye whiskey, is made of plain glass, and has a wooden stopper. The bottle on the top shelf is made of the finest crystal, the glass stopper has been lap ground to fit the bottle opening perfectly, and it is filled with 30 year old Scotch whiskey. In between are three bottles of less and less ornate craftsmanship and poorer quality of whiskey as they get down to the bottom bottle. Keep this in mind when you are reading the essay.

Poverty Hype By Walter E. Williams January 4, 2006 Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer. The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Messrs. Cox and Alms found: Only 5 percent of families in the bottom fifth of income in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income fifths. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income fifth moved to a higher fifth, with 25 percent of them moving to the top fifth. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people. Messrs. Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income fifth in 1979 had moved on to a higher income fifth by 1988 -- two thirds to second and third fifths and 15 percent to the top fifth. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top 1 percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge. Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit." The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only 7 percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household, compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

Time's Joe Klein Wraps A Nugget Of Insight In A Pedestrian Movie Review

I have always considered Joe Klein to be a Leftist dickhead, and, given his actions in the 1990s, an obsequous ass presenter in the colony presideded over by alpha baboon, Bill Clinton. But even Buttboy Joe gets it right once in a while.

In his TIME movie review,"When Hollywood Gets Terrorism Right", of the films "Munich", "Syriana", "Paradise Now" and the TV series "24", he has this to say in the last paragraph:

...but the psychological burden is crushing. And that is the point: this new form of warfare, imposed by Islamist fanatics—and utilized by Iraqi extremists in response to the U.S. invasion—is a sapping wound to a civilized society. ... The moral necessity to confront the terrorists is clear. But the war is going to be fought on their terms, not ours, and we are bound to be diminished—stained, perhaps irrevocably—by it.

This idea, that we will end up soiled beyond cleaning in our struggle with Islamofascism, is undisputably true. I accept this as a price we must pay in order to keep from paying a much higher toll. That price is not more American dead, although that will inevitably happen. Nor is it the coarsening of a society that engages in war, although that will inevitably occur. It is not any of the many toxic by-products of prosecuting this struggle.

No, the price we cannot allow ourselves to pay is the culture destroying psychic death-by-regret of a people who have killed millions of innocents to get a relative handful of bad guys.

If we fail to get the bad guys, and the bad guys only. If we allow the terrorists to goad us, by attacking over and over on our own turf, into a white hot conclusion that we will kill as many Muslims as needed in order to solve the problem, we will then have become as bad as the Islamofascists. Worse, because we, the U.S.. actually have the power to destroy them all.

And you know what? We would not last too long after that. Because our self image as the good guys would be gone. And we would deserve it.

John Murtha, War Hero?

John Murtha, the congressman who want to get out of Iraq thereby leaviung the Iraqis who have trusted us to the tender mercies of Al Queada, is lionized as a war veteran in the Main Stream Media, with two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. They say he joined the Marines to fight in the Korean war. What they don't mention is he never set foot on Korean soil. He spent the war as a drill insructor at Camp Lejuene N.C. Nothing wrong with this except the implication is that he saw combat in the Korean War. He did not.

He volunteered to go to Vietnam in 1966. He came back in 1967. This means he spent 12 months or less in Vietnam. He was a regimental intelligence officer. Do regimental intelligence officers go out in the field? How did he get two Purple Hearts? How did he get the Bronze Star? Inquiring minds want to know.

We Are Countering Al Jazeera

The U.S. military is countering the lies put out, on a daily basis, by Al Jazeera and its clones in the Middle East. The U.S. military only uses the truth. If you don't get that, then piss on you!

The Hypocrisy of the Self Righteous Left

Leftists, especially big name leftists, the ones who are always blabbering about how other people are too rich, use too many of "our precious natural resources", are too selfish, etc in the self righteous, finger waving manner we have all become accustomed to have been dealt an icepick into their ballon-like egos by the publication of Peter Schweitzer's book "Do As I Say, Not As I Do. Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." Herewith, a snippet from the "Carlson Tucker Show" detailing some of the hypocrasies of Barbara Striesand, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, and the Kennedy family.

You have these -- have amazing examples of hypocrisy. Barbra Streisand, you point out, and did I misread this? Could this really be true? This environmentalist, Barbra Streisand, spends 20 grand a year watering her lawn? How do you know that? SCHWEITZER: Yes, it`s public record; $22,000 a year is her water Bill. And she lives in a compound, just her and her husband, James Brolin, that has five homes, and a 12,000-square-foot air conditioned barn, if you can believe it. CARLSON: That`s -- that`s a major violation of the principles of ecology, it sounds like. Has she ever responded to this? SCHWEITZER: She hasn`t. And what is so funny about it, Tucker, is that, you know, she`s constantly lecturing the American people on what she calls excessive consumption and says that, you know, the American people need to give up their SUVs, and they need to hang their clothes out to dry instead of using the dryer. So it`s ridiculous, you know. The gap between what she claims she believes and what she actually does is huge. CARLSON: Yes, I`d suggest that she be quiet, but it`s so amusing when she talks, I hope she keeps yapping. Michael Moore, a hypocrite according to you. Give me examples. SCHWEITZER: Well, you know, Michael Moore has said at least half a dozen times in his books, on C-SPAN, and in interviews with newspapers and magazines, that he doesn`t own a single share of stock, because he considers Wall Street money to be dirty. Well, he may be technically correct, Tucker. He doesn`t own a single share; he owns tens of thousands of shares of stock. And a lot of people that listen to him would probably be interested to know that among the companies he`s owned shares in include pharmaceutical companies, off-shore oil drilling companies, defense contractors, and believe it or not, in recent years, he`s also been a shareholder in Halliburton. CARLSON: But he must have lost money on Halliburton. SCHWEITZER: No, actually he took a 15 percent capital gain on some of the stock in Halliburton that he sold. CARLSON: That is just amazing. You`ve got a portion of your book where you quote Michael Moore calling other people racist for not having diverse enough staffs. And according to Michael Moore in one of his books as saying he`s never going to hire anybody but black employees from now on. Has he lived up to that pledge? SCHWEITZER: No, he hasn`t. I mean, he and Al Franken both have abysmal records. They criticize conservatives and corporate America for a lack of diversity and say that they`re racists and bigots because they don`t embrace affirmative action. But if you look at the credited people that Michael Moore has hired since 1990, he`s hired 134 people. A grand total of three were actually black. For Al Franken, he`s hired 112 people during that time period. A grand total of one was actually black. So they both have abysmal records when it comes to what they profess they believe in. CARLSON: Ouch. Now, to be fair, I`m not personally all that against hypocrisy, because I think that everybody falls short of his own ideals. And if you live up to your ideas, you probably have pretty low standards. We`re all hypocrites? Are you making the case that liberals are more hypocritical than conservatives? SCHWEITZER: Well, I really -- I think there`s two differences. Yes, we are all hypocritical. That`s very true. But I think, first of all, you never hear about liberal hypocrisy. I mean, you hear about it with conservatives all the time. Liberals get a free pass. You know, they advocate taxes, but then they work to avoid paying the very same taxes. You never hear about that. But the second distinction I think is even more important, Tucker. When conservatives abandon the principles and are hypocrites, what ends up happening? They get hurt; they damage their families; they damage their lives. With liberals, you find something very interesting. I would argue their ideas are so bad that when they become hypocrites and abandon their principles, they actually improve their lives. CARLSON: Interesting. Now, Ted Kennedy, I mean, I was a little bit surprised to hear you call him a hypocrite. Sum that up for us, that case. SCHWEITZER: Well, in Ted Kennedy`s case, I mean, for 40 years, he`s been advocating higher taxes. His pet cause now is the inheritance tax. He says it`s socially just and fair for the American people to pay 49 percent when they die to the IRS. The irony is that Ted Kennedy and his family have been massively successful at avoiding paying that very same tax. According to the Kennedy family`s own numbers, they have transferred between $300 million and $500 million from one generation to the other. On that money, they`ve paid a grand total of $134,000 in taxes. Tucker, that`s less than 1 percent. So he`s not in any position to lecture anybody on the need to pay taxes until he starts doing it himself. CARLSON: Who is his accountant, do you know? Might be interested in signing up with that program. SCHWEITZER: Yes, he`s got a whole team of them. What they`ve done is they`ve set up trusts in estates all across the United States. In fact, Merchandise Mart, you know, the large real estate holding that they used to own, that was actually domiciled in a trust that was set up on the island nation of Fiji, if you can believe it. Yes, so very creative accounting, to say the least. CARLSON: So he`s one of those corporate Benedict Arnolds Kerry was always lecturing us about. Peter Schweitzer, author of "Do as I Say." Excellent book. Thanks a lot for joining us. SCHWEITZER: Thanks for having me, Tucker.

McCain Is Putting All our Heads In The Guillotine

Senator John McCain is trying to remove the option of torture from the arsenal of the American People in its war with the Islamist fanatics. He says that it leads to bad intelligence because the prisoner will say anything to make the pain stop.

Story Link McCain vows to add torture ban to all major Senate legislation

Speaking from the Senate floor, McCain said, "If necessary - and I sincerely hope it is not - I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails. Let no one doubt our determination." The ban would establish the Army Field Manual as the guiding authority in interrogations and prohibit "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment" of prisoners. ''Subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop,'' McCain said

Poor John, he does not understand. We are not Communist schmucks out to torture prisoners for revenge and fun. Our goal is to obtain data that can be used to prevent terror attacks. It is the threat of pain, discomfort, or death that prompts the terrorist to answer questions and carry on a conversation in the first place. The actual pain is administered if he lies. He will stick to the truth to avoid pain.

Sosphisticated interrogation techniques are capable of determining if he is lying by comparing what he is saying to what he has said and to other verified data. No human mind can construct, and keep track of a fabric of lies over a period of weeks or months. If the terrorist can be persuaded to talk, the truth can be ferreted out. And we will be able to prevent terrorist attacks. but the terrorist must always know that if we need to, we have the option of torture.

If McCain is successful, he will be putting us in deeper danger. It is the equivalent of baring all our throats to Al Quaeda.

He should be ashamed of himself.

President Bush should veto any legislation with this dangerous provision attached to it.

Valerie Plame Was NOT a "Covert Agent"

She was employed by the CIA but at the time of her "outing" she was NOT covert, just an employee. The subsequent two year hurricane of ink and pixels has been a deliberate attempt by the leftist Main Stream Media to create another Watergate. It has failed.

EDITOR'S NOTE

Due to DSL problems this blog will not be updated for about two weeks. See you in November.

List of Tom DeLay Related Posts

• 
  The Tom Delay Indictment(s) Will Go Nowhere.......October 8, 2005
• 
  Tom DeLay Indictment: No Direct Connection. Why Is That ?.......October 6, 2005
• 
  The DeLay Indictment: The Foreman Speaks out.......October 2, 2005
• Tom DeLay Indictment: Okay Ronnie, Now Prove it! September 28 2005
• 
  Take THAT! Tom Delay Haters.......September 12, 2005
• So Sorry! Tom Delay Haters.......September 10, 2005
• So Sorry, Again! Tom Delay haters.......September 10, 2005
• 
  Senator Clinton Must Come Clean About Her Involvement, Or Resign.......April 21, 2005
• 
  Proving a Negative, Tom Delay's Task, Set by the Left.......April 19, 2005
• Proof, Proof, Ya Gotta Have Proof!.........April 17,2005
• Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Fined $21,000 by FEC........April 14, 2005
• 
  Barbara Boxer Funnels Money to Son, Media Fails to Notice..........April 14, 2005
• More Than 3 Million Paid to Congressional Family Members in Last Election Cycle.......April 14, 2005
• Newt,We Hardly Knew Ye!.......April 13, 2005
• New York Times, Others Scheme to Oust Tom Delay.......April 11, 2005
• Valerie Has Plamed Out..........April 08, 2005
• Moneybags Soros Funds Tom Delay Critics.......April 6, 2005
• Ronnie Earl, moralizing hypocrite and Nut........November 26, 2004
  

The Tom Delay Indictment(s) Will Go Nowhere

This is why the indictments against Tom DeLay will never see a jury. CNN runs this story online. The crucial information is contained in the box below.

DeLay, R-Texas, and two associates were indicted September 28 on a conspiracy charge that accuses them of illegally steering $190,000 in corporate donations to state legislative candidates in 2002 and disguising the source by sending the money through national Republican campaign committees. The indictment came as that grand jury's term was expiring. After questions were raised about whether the charge applied to state election code, Earle went to a second grand jury, which declined to bring a money laundering charge against the three. Earle then went to a third grand jury, and it returned an indictment on October 3 indicting DeLay and his associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, with money laundering and conspiracy. Friday's motion was filed in Travis County District Court by DeLay's lead attorney, Dick DeGuerin. DeGuerin alleges that once Earle realized DeLay had been charged with a "crime that did not exist in Texas law," the prosecutor and his staff "engaged in an extraordinarily irregular and desperate attempt to contrive a viable charge" before the statute of limitations ended. The motion accuses Earle of trying to cover up that the second grand jury rejected the prosecutor's "new, contrived charges of money laundering."

Ronnie(I Just Enforce The Law) Earle does not have the evidence to support the charges. They are solely political in nature. The indictment(s) will be set aside by a judge.

Tom DeLay Indictment: No Direct Connection. Why Is That ?

Something funny about this graphic published in the Austin-American Statesman. It is billed as a timeline of facts behind charges against Tom DeLay but there are no arrows or mention of Tom Delay in the boxes. Funny, for a person to be as deeply involved as Tom is supposed to be, wouldn't it be appropriate to have at least one direct link between him and the crime?

It is fast becoming plain to any objective observer that Ronnie Earle is grasping at straws. He got the second indictment from a newly impaneled grand jury the within hours of the first meeting, before they were even given orientation. Do you think they had time to consider the evidence?

He had to scramble to get the second indictment, going before two Grand Juries to get one indictment, because he screwed up so bad on the first. A small detail like the law not being in effect at the time of the supposed crime. Hoohaaa Boy! How stupid can one man be?

Besides being a Leftist hack, Ronnie (I Just Enforce The Law, Except When I Don't) Earle is also an incompetent dunce.

The DeLay Indictment: The Foreman Speaks out

William M. Gibson Jr., the foreman of the Austin, Texas Grand Jury that recently indicted Congressman Tom DeLay appears to be spilling his guts to newspaper reporters. He does not get specific, no names or dates does he speak. Just "... stacks and stacks of papers — evidence of telephone calls from Mr. DeLay and everybody" Papers specifying what, phone logs specifying when and who are not given. Just generalities

This is quite puzzling. By Texas law, Grand Jury proceedings are secret and not to be divulged. This excerpt from the Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure states:

"... Art. 20.02.... Proceedings secret ...(b) A grand juror ... who discloses anything transpiring before the grand jury,... shall be liable to a fine as for contempt of the court, not exceeding five hundred dollars, imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both such fine and imprisonment."

Maybe Gibson is rich enough so that $500 is a trifling sum, and tough enough that a month in jail is no big deal.

Or maybe he thinks that Texas House Bill 462 has become law. HB462 is sponsored by Harold V. Dutton Jr., a Houston Democrat. It changes the Grand Jury oath so that Jury members are compelled to keep their mouths shut only while that particular Grand Jury is in session. When it disbands, they can blab all they want. If this is what William M. Gibson Jr. believes will keep him out of jail, then Harold Dutton, Democrat, should clue him in that HB462 is still in committee. It ain't law!

Or, and this is by far the most likely scenario, Willaim M. Gibson Jr. is secure in the knowledge that the DA of Travis county will not bring charges against him. That District Attorney is none other than Ronnie (I Just Enforce The Law) Earle. To understand just how this would have come about, focus your attention on the imaginary telephone conversation below.

Cell phone custom ring:" I fought the law, and the....law won..I fought the law and the.....law won......" Ronnie Earle: Hello, this is Ronnie Earle, I just enforce the law. William M. Gibson Jr.: Ronnie? Hey Ronnie? It's me Bill. Ronnie Earle: Bill? Bill who? How did you get this number? William Gibson Jr.: You know, Bill. The foreman of the Grand Jury. We indicted Tom DeLay. Ronnie Earle: Oh, sure Bill, what can I do for you? William Gibson Jr.: Well, I'm upset, Ronnie, you said, you promised that if we indicted him he'd curl up like a red worm on hot concrete and you'd scoop him up like roadkill. But he ain't backin' down! He just keeps comin' on the radio, and the TeeVee, smilin' that smile and sayin' over and over that you ain't got nothin'. He might as well be sayin' that we, the Grand Jury are a bunch of dumbasses, for indicting him on your say-so. Ronnie Earle: Yeah........Bill, listen to me for a minute, ole buddy. Are ya listenin'? I kinda, sorta told you all a tiny little white lie. The truth is I don't have nearly as much evidence against him as I let on to ya'll. But I figgered if I got him indicted and he saw what he was up against. He'd see reason and ask for a plea bargain. It's worked so many times before I didn't see why it wouldn't work now. Gibson Jr.: Well, evidently it ain't workin'! What are we going to do now? Ronnie Earle: Well, I got an idea. It involves you. And you'll have to talk to some reporters about some of the things I told you in the Grand Juty session, only you will make out like you actually saw it. Gibson Jr.: Reporters, huh? I don't know. I might say the wrong thing. I might do the wrong thing. What'll I say!?....... Earle: Don't worry about it! You don't have to remember any specific things to say, just generalities, buddy. They'll take it from there. Jr.: ..... and what about the oath I took to keep all that stuff secret? I could go to jail! Earle: Bill! Get ahold of yourself. I swear sometimes you are as dense as a fencepost. I am the guy who brings charges in this county! Do you think I would bring charges against you after all you have done for the Party? You just go ahead an do what I tell you, you ain't got nothin' to worry about. Jr.: Oh, OK! I guess I can expect a call from the news people, huh? Earle: Yeah. Give me a coupl'a hours to set it up with some of my reporter friends. I'll call you back and we'll go over what you're gonna say to 'em again. OK? Jr.: OK.

The foregoing conversation is speculation. But taking into account the low-life that is Ronnie Earle, and his history of political vendetta, it is probably true. Maybe not in the details but the broad strokes are right on target.

Tom DeLay Indictment: Okay Ronnie, Now Prove it!

Below is the indictment released today by Ronnie Earle, from the Travis County District Attorney's office. As can be seen there is no new info. Ronnie Earle just added Tom DeLay's name to a previous list of supposed bad deeds done by people associated with DeLay.

DeLay's name appears on the front page, then he is accused along with the others of conspiracy but the list of particulars does not mention him at all. He does come up when the document mentions he waived his rights to statute of limitations protection. And this must be how Ronnie the Rooter was able to come up with this bogus conspiracy charge.

It is not worth the paper it is printed on, much less the time it took, 3 years, and six Grand Juries to accomplish.

Tom Delay Indictment Text-Page 1 (Click to Enlarge)
Tom Delay Indictment Text-Page 2(Click to Enlarge)
Tom Delay Indictment Text-Page 3(Click to Enlarge)
Tom Delay Indictment Text-Page 4(Click to Enlarge)

This Just In: Cheney Planned 9/11, Impeach Bush!

Blogger Bonnie of "Kinder Gentler Brain" sent an e-mail in response to the post " Impeach Bush: The Popularity Approach" in which she cited "The Project For A New American Century"

Bonnie sez:

I have researched and listed several crimes that appear to have been committed by the current administration. But then again I was one of apparently a very few Americans that knew about the Project for the New American Century that was outlined in 1997 in which Mr. Cheney and his cronies have decided that a nation at peace is not very profitable.

The PNAC statement of principles are:

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

These are crimes? It seems to me that the PNAC's goals are to strengthen our military, promote democracy, promote freedom both political and economic, and preserve order. All laudable goals in light of subsequent world events. (bombing of American embassies, attack on the U.S.S. Cole, 9/11, etc.)

Bonnie sez:

Part of their plan is to create a situation like Pearl Harbor to get the American people behind the idea of going to war. If you start back in 1997 with this plan and then follow the progression of the administration, it becomes hard to think that this war was for profit only.

The only fly in that particular ointment is that Islamic terrorism against the U.S. began in 1979 with the taking of hostages in Tehran. According to Bonnie's timeline Cheney and company did not even began planning their grand conspiracy until 1997.

Bonnie is hereby invited to cite the so-called crimes in the PNAC documentation that Cheney, etal are plotting to foist upon an innocent, unsupecting world.

Impeach Bush: A Collection Of Nonstarters Named " Articles Of Impeachment"

To actually impeach a president, articles of impeachment must be brought against him by the House Of Representatives. In the 1980s, Congressman Henry B. Gonzales(D-Texas) prepared "articles of impeachment" against Ronald Reagan on a regular basis. Henry B. met with about as much success as this bunch of Don Quixotes will ultimately see.

It would also seem that these people live in the perpetual twilight of a September 10, 2001 world. Any event that occured after that day does not appear on their radar. They acknowledge the occurence of such events in order to use them bolster their own case, but any re-assessment of worldview in light of such events is completely missing.

Below are the "articles of impeachment" posted at Impeachment.org and refutations of them [in breackets]. Purely catchall phrases thrown for good measure, or outright propaganda has been deleted.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. ... (propagandandistic preamble snipped)... 1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;[Authorized by Congress] carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s. [Authorized by US Congress and UN resolution 1441] 2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war. [If President Bush lied, so did President Bill Clinton, Senators Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Tom Harkin, and Barbara Boxer. These are only some the Democrats who have said exactly the same thing, years before President Bush repeated it. Were they lying too?] . 3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable. [The attack on Iraq was conducted, and American soldier's lives put at risk, in order to minimize civilian casualties.] 4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression. [Enforcing UN resolution 1441] 4) Deleted, 5) Deleted 6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.[More catchall phrases, except for the reference to the UN in which case, resolution 1441 was being enforced.] 7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of acitizen as an "enemy combatant."[Passed by Congress, subsequently confirmed as legal by the Supreme Court] 8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense. [Some of these scuzballs were let go whereupon they went right back to conducting terrorist acts against the US] 9) Deleted, 10)Deleted 11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry. [Congress passed and the courts affirmed this practice. Safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse.] 12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials. [Congress passed and the courts affirmed this practice. Safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse.] 13)Deleted, 14) Deleted, 15) Deleted, 16)Deleted 17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court. [The treaty was with the USSR which no longer exists]

Impeach Bush: The Popularity Approach

Impeach Bush Blogger, Bonnie has written a post titled "Impeach Bush:Reasons Republicans Should Join" in which she holds forth to republicans on the reasons to impeach President Bush.

I must say, this is a novel approach. Impeaching a president primarily because you think the American People don't like him, not because of anything he has done has never been tried before.

This of course, begs the question of offending the Republican base and the people who think he is the last, best chance for Western culture.

... Republicans though need to be looking hard at poll numbers and thinking about the 2006 elections. ...According to a poll by the Cleveland Plain Dealer 46% say he should step down from office while 44% think he should stay. ... If Republican leaders would listen to their constituents ... If Republicans want to come out of the Bush Era somewhat intact ... Instead of allowing Bush and his cronies to take down the whole party over the coming months or years, ...the Republicans could very well have a mess on their hands that may take years to clean up. So if there are Republican leaders in Washington that would like to maintain some dignity within the party, they should take the initiative into demanding accountability from Bush and Company.

The Bloggers Who Would Impeach Bush

The bloggers who are attempting to impeach President Bush have got to be one of the angriest, most out-of-touch group of people, outside of a lunatic asylum, that has ever existed. This group is Moveon.org squared.

Using Technorati and Google, the following strange fish can be brought up from the depths of the Internet.

Rambler Joe Snitty, the neo-hippy . This guy thinks that the only thing necessary to Impeach President Bush is influence the Senate. Guess his civics lessons didn't cover details like the House of Representatives, who must actually bring forward articles of impeachment before the Senate can act. That's right Joe, you are going to have to convince a majority of that august, 435 member body to impeach. but then you are only half way. You still have to convince more than half of the Senate that he is a rat. And, as if that isn't enough, the guys you are tasked with convincing are Republicans!

Then there's the Impeach Bush Coalition. A veritable treasure trove of hard hitting reasons to impeach President Bush. Reasons like "George Bush and his officials are derelict in their duty" Because they didn't turn Katrina away from Nawlins. Or "George Bush and his officials lied to the American people" because President Bush, ever the nice guy, tried to cover for Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco by offering the opinion, on the Today Show, that they probably did not anticipate the levees breaking. The list goes on....and on in this same vein of complete and utter crap. It makes amusing reading though.

A Google search for "impeach bush" site:blogspot.com yields 53,600 pages that contain the phrase "impeach bush". This covers only the free webpages offered by Blogger. Only 84 of them are relevant though, the rest are repeats.

A Google web search for "impeach bush" yields a whopping 1,100,000 pages.

One more thing, this effort appears to be headed, in part, by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has been in the middle of every crackpot movement since the American people threw Jimmy Carter out of office.

Have any of you guys ever read Don Quixote?