In 1995, 19 Democrats voted to eliminate ALL filibusters.

April 21, 2005, 12:18 p.m.

Filibuster Rules: Then & Now
by Sean Rushton

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) on Wednesday held a press conference to criticize Republican efforts to restore Senate tradition to the judicial confirmation process. But another proposal regarding Senate rules somehow escaped his ire, and has received scant attention despite the New York Times editorial board’s recently saying it would go “even further than the ‘nuclear option’ in eliminating the power of the filibuster.”

That proposal would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.”

He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.”

Despite its support by several senior senators, you haven’t heard about this proposal in the MoveOn.org ads blasting Senate Republicans. And you probably haven’t heard about it from Senate Democrats who now give their full-throated support to filibusters against President Bush’s nominees.

Why?

Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure.

Unlike the attempts by Democrats to end all filibusters, the effort by Senate Republicans is limited to the judicial confirmation process. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday: “If I must act to bring fairness back to the judicial nomination process, I will not act in any way to impact the rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation.”

Despite efforts by special-interest groups on the left and their champions in the Senate, there is nothing sacrosanct about the filibuster of nominees — regardless of the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington imagery Democrats now conjure in support of filibfilibuster rules, the same rules they once called “legislative piracy.”

Our founders did not use filibusters.

In fact, for the first several Congresses (from 1789 to 1806), a majority of senators always had the power to bring debate to a close (cloture) by a majority vote.Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well.

In fact, there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster.

For example:

You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).

You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).

You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).

And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

The vote on the Harkin proposal was not the only effort to reform Senate rules. It is important to note that in 1975 the Senate voted three times in support of the power of a Senate majority under Article I of the Constitution to change the rules. Those precedents forced the Senate to act and led to a major change in the cloture rule.

So the restoration of Senate rules and traditions for judicial nominees enjoys both historical support and Senate precedent. But the constitutional power of a majority of Senators to strengthen, improve, and reform Senate rules and procedures is also expressly stated in the Constitution, and was unanimously endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin.

In Ballin, the Court unanimously held that unless the Constitution expressly provides for a supermajority vote, the constitutional rule is majority vote. For example, the Constitution clearly states that each house of Congress “may determine the Rules of its Proceedings” (Article I, Section 5).

The truth is that throughout our nation’s more than 200-year history, the constitutional precedent and Senate tradition for confirming judges has been majority rule. Senators should have the right to restore that tradition.

And Republican efforts to do so with the “Byrd Option” — named for Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W. Va.), who pioneered the procedure when he served as Senate majority leader — should not be demonized, particularly by those Senate Democrats who so tenaciously argued against filibusters under previous presidents.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said recently that the current attempt to restore Senate rules on judicial nominations would turn the Senate into a “banana republic.” Given their attempts to end all filibusters in the past, at least 19 Democrats should take issue with that assertion.

Hypocrisy at N.O.W.?? Nawwww...Can't Be!

The following article can be found at http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050417-114026-2064r.htm

BREAST IMPLANT PIROUETTE
By Jacob Sullum

For decades, members of the National Organization for Women and other groups that support abortion rights urged politicians to "keep your hands off our bodies." Today, women who want to enhance their appearance with silicone breast implants can justly turn this slogan against NOW, which is pro-choice on abortion but anti-choice on cosmetic surgery.

NOW President Kim Gandy says the controversy over whether the Food and Drug Administration should allow wider use of silicone breast implants, currently limited mainly to reconstructive surgery following mastectomies, is about "science and medicine."

But while science can tell us (in theory) what risks implants pose, it cannot tell us if they are justified. Different women will answer that question differently, depending upon their values, tastes and circumstances. In sharp contrast with its position on abortion, however, NOW argues women should not be allowed to do that.

Ms. Gandy says women who want augmentation surgery cannot make an informed choice between silicone and saline implants until there is more research. This wait-and-see stance may seem reasonable.

It was clear from the deliberations of the FDA's advisory committee, which recently recommended approval of one manufacturer's implants for general use but called for more information about the long-term performance of another's, that legitimate questions remain about how well the current models hold up after the first few years.

But the determination of how much information women need to make a choice is itself a value judgment. Mentor, the company whose implant found favor with the advisory committee, reported a cumulative rupture rate of 0.8 percent among about 1,000 patients over three years. Based on longer-term studies by other researchers, it estimated 9 percent to 15 percent would experience ruptures after 12 years.

NOW says Mentor should wait until the company's own 10-year study is completed. But that would mean women willing to accept the risk and uncertainty in exchange for the superior look and feel of silicone implants (preferred by 9 in 10 patients in countries where silicone implants are widely available) could not make that that tradeoff.

In any case, NOW's objections to silicone implants extend far beyond well-established local complications such as implant rupture, infection, inflammation and collapse of the scar-tissue capsule surrounding the implant. The group continues lending credence to the unsubstantiated fears of systemic illness that led to FDA's 1992 decision to limit sales of silicone implants.

"Hundreds of thousands of women have been injured and become seriously ill after receiving silicone gel breast implants," says Ms. Gandy in a December 2004 article on NOW's Web site. The article explains "breast implant patients report a variety of immune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, fibromyalgia, Sjogren's disease and lupus."

Ms. Gandy brags of being "informed by the personal stories of these survivors." The problem is such stories don't prove anything, relying on emotion and post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning instead of scientific evidence.

In a comprehensive 2000 report on the safety of silicone breast implants,the National Academy of Sciences concluded "silicone implants do not cause major disease." As the New York Times notes, "Nearly all studies have found no link between silicone implants and serious disease."

Yet NOW encourages the belief research will one day "conclusively demonstrate that silicone gel should never be introduced into the human body,"as Ms. Gandy said in 2003.

In addition to immune disorders, NOW raises thes pecter of lung cancer, brain cancer, suicide and harm to fetuses and nursing children. It throws in "rashes, hair loss, open sores, aching muscles and joints, mental confusion and memory loss" for good measure.

Given the many charges and the difficulty teasing out small risks from epidemiological research, NOW's demand for "complete information" on silicone implants will never be met. In practice, it is the same as a demand for a permanent ban.

Why doesn't NOW apply the same impossible standard to abortion, which has its share of complications and side effects, both known and hypothesized?

I hesitate to suggest a nonscientific explanation, but perhaps it's because NOW --which complains of "slick advertising campaigns" that manipulate women into getting boob jobs and dresses its activists in T-shirts declaring their breasts"100 percent all natural" -- would prefer certain choices not be made at all.

Did You Hear What They Said?

That's right, faithful readers!

It's time for another exciting edition of " Did You Hear What They Said?"

This is wear we post ACTUAL QUOTES of leaders and other important figures and let the WHOLE WORLD see where they stand.

WARNING: You may not like what you see. If you don't, then ask yourself, "What does it say ABOUT ME???"

RELIGION
"Religion has always been central to our national identity. Religious references do not violate the First Amendment, which was never intended to bar all religious expression or discussion from national discourse. James Madison himself, the author of the First Amendment, was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible. So was George Washington, and, I believe, every president since. The Ten Commandments provide the very foundation of our nation's legal code. They also make up the basis of the moral values that thankfully guide us in our everyday lives." --Lawrence Kudlow

"Young man, the secret of my success is that at an early age I discovered I was not God." --Oliver Wendell Holmes

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal

"There was a time when 'fear of God' meant piety, or at least conscience. Today, it more accurately describes the worldview of secular liberals who get itchy and twitchy at any reminder of our religious roots as a nation." --Mona Charen

"There is no such thing as a new morality. There is only one morality. All else is immorality." --Theodore Roosevelt

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." --Daniel Webster

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount....The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." --General Omar Bradley

TAXES

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." --Winston Churchill

"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin." --Mark Twain

"Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need supervision." --Dick Armey

"Despite all the tax cuts that the federal government has passed recently, Americans will still spend more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and medical care combined," http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

"Exactly where is it written that responsible parents, empty-nesters and people who chose not to have children must become the financial providers for the infinite needs of an infinite number of children created by members of society possessed of infinite irresponsibility?"--Dan Sargis

"When a government takes over a people's economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs." --Maxwell Anderson

CULTURE OF LIFE

"a man's authority as a husband does not supersede his wife's rights as a human being -- a principle we never thought we'd see liberals question." --James Taranto

"The question is not whether the suffering and dying person's life should be terminated, the question is what kind of nation will we become if they are? Their physical death is preceded only by our moral death!" --William Federer

"Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism." --Ann Coulter

(Here's the ultimate jaw-dropper:)
"I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant. For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments." --Princeton University Professor, Peter Singer

"If this country had a national psychologist, I'm afraid the Democratic party would be diagnosed with terminal projection. They have done nothing except accuse their opponents of every moral failing that they themselves are practicing." --Duane Patterson

"They're terrible people, liberals. They believe -- this can really summarize it all -- these are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!" --Ann Coulter

JUDICIARY

'To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.'--Thomas Jefferson

"the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." --John Bolton

WAR

"To say that we 'lied our way into Iraq' presupposes an omniscience on the part of our administration that simply cannot be supported by any historical evidence. While WMD may never be found, there is proof that it once existed and there is no proof that it was destroyed." - Matt Osborn, in alt.war.vietnam, March 27, 2004.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." — John Stuart Mill (1868).

"Some things are worth fighting and dying for, liberty foremost among them." --Ross Mackenzie

O.K., Trivia Time!

Can you guess who said the following:

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

Was it:

a) George W. Bush

b) Ronald Regan

c)Bill Clinton

d) John F. Kennedy

(Scroll down for the answer. NO CHEATING!)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

JOHN F. KENNEDY

What good is liberty if it's not worth fighting for?

Err America: Crash and Burn

The following story is so good, felt that I needed to post it in its entirety here> It can be found at http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-anderson18apr18.story

In addition, I have highlighted the the more humourous and relevant portions:

Why the Liberals Can't Keep Air America From Spiraling In

By Brian C. Anderson

The liberal Air America Radio, just past its first birthday, has probably enjoyed more free publicity than any enterprise in recent history. But don't believe the hype: Air America's left-wing answer to conservative talk radio is failing, just as previous efforts to find liberal Rush Limbaughs have failed.

Wait a second, you say, didn't I read that Air America has expanded to more than 50 markets? That's true, but let's put things in perspective: Conservative pundit and former Reagan official William J. Bennett's morning talk show, launched at the same time as Air America, reaches nearly 124 markets, including 18 of the top 20, joining the growing ranks of successful right-of-center talk programs (Limbaugh is still the ratings leader, drawing more than 15 million listeners a week).

And look at Air America's ratings: They're pitifully weak, even in places where you would think they'd be strong. WLIB, its flagship in New York City, has sunk to 24th in the metro area Arbitron ratings — worse than the all-Caribbean format it replaced, notes the Radio Blogger. In the liberal meccas of San Francisco and Los Angeles, Air America is doing lousier still.

So why do liberals fare so poorly on air? Some on the left say it's because liberals are, well, smarter and can't convey their sophisticated ideas to the rubes who listen to talk radio. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, whose own stint as a talk-show host was a ratings disaster, gave canonical expression to this self-serving view. Conservatives "write their messages with crayons," he maintained. "We use fine-point quills."

Yet even if we were to grant the premise that conservative talk radio can sometimes be crudely simplistic — a tough charge to make stick against, say, one-time philosophy professor Bennett or Clarence Thomas' former law clerk Laura Ingraham — how can anyone plausibly believe the right has a monopoly on misleading argument?

Moreover, talk-show fans aren't dummies. Industry surveys show that talk-radio fans vote in greater percentages than the general public, tend to be college-educated and read more magazines and newspapers than the average American.

Successful talk radio is conservative for three reasons:

• Entertainment value. The top conservative hosts put on snazzy, frequently humorous shows. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, observes: "The parody, the asides, the self-effacing humor, the bluster are all part of the packaging that makes the political message palatable." Besides, the triumph of political correctness on the left makes it hard for on-air liberals to lighten things up without offending anyone.

• Fragmentation of the potential audience. Political consultant Dick Morris explains: "Large percentages of liberals are black and Hispanic, and they now have their own specialized entertainment radio outlets, which they aren't likely to leave for liberal talk radio." The potential audience for Air America or similar ventures is thus pretty small — white liberals, basically. And they've already got NPR.

• Liberal bias in the old media. That's what birthed talk radio in the first place. People turn to it to help right the imbalance. Political scientist William Mayer, writing in the Public Interest, recently observed that liberals don't need talk radio because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers and NPR.

Unable to prosper in the medium, liberals have taken to denouncing talk radio as a threat to democracy. Liberal political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg, writing in the New Yorker, is typically venomous. Conservative talk radio represents "vicious, untreated political sewage" and "niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive," Hertzberg sneers.

If some liberals had their way, Congress would regulate political talk radio out of existence. Their logic is that scrapping Air America would be no loss if it also meant getting Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bennett off the air.

To accomplish this, New York Democratic Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey has proposed reviving the Fairness Doctrine to protect "diversity of view," and John Kerry recently sent out some signals that he too thought that might be a good idea.

Under the old Fairness Doctrine, phased out by Ronald Reagan's FCC in the late '80s, any station that broadcast a political opinion had to give equal time to opposing views. A station running, say, Hannity's show, would also have to broadcast a left-wing competitor, even if it had no listeners. Pre-Reagan, talk radio in today's sense simply didn't exist. What station could risk it?

But people listen to conservative talk because they want to, not because the post-Fairness Doctrine regulatory regime forces them to. To claim that "diversity of view" is lacking in the era of blogs and cable news, moreover, is downright silly. Complaints about fairness are really about driving out conservative viewpoints.

Sure, talk radio is partisan, sometimes overheated. But it's also a source of argument and information. Together with Fox News and the blogosphere, it has given the right a chance to break through the liberal monoculture and be heard. For that, anyone who supports spirited public debate should be grateful.

A Theif on the Payroll

The only reason this article bothers me is that if there were any incriminating evidence against the Dutchess of Stalingrad, Sandy Berger would be sent in to steal it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/16/123134.shtml

Lawmakers with Relatives On the Payroll

Here's a list for all those who think Rep. Tom DeLay is the only one with relatives on the payroll:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/13/210452.shtml

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman: Son Matthew received about $34,000 and daughter Rebecca about $36,000 for working on the senator's 2004 presidential campaign.

Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.: Nephew Todd Reichert was paid $3,000 last year, plus several hundred dollars for mileage, for serving as driver.
California Democratic Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark: Wife Deborah earns $2,400 a month for serving as campaign consultant.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.: Wife Arlene Willis serves as congressional chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.: Wife Laurie Stupak earned about $36,000 annually the past two years as the finance director for her husband's campaign.

Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio: Wife Elizabeth was paid about $1,730 a month during his 2004 campaign. She has worked as a campaign consultant for him since the 2001 election cycle.

Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif.: Cousin Ken Costa made about $45,000 for serving as a co-campaign manager last year.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah: Three college-age children worked on his campaign last year. Emily was paid $5,425, Jane $9,508 and Laura $17,766.

Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.: Sister-in-law Sharon Davis has been his campaign treasurer since 1994,and daughter Libby Davis was his campaign coordinator in the last half of 2004. Libby Davis was paid about $2,334 a month; Sharon Davis was paid about $1,000 a month for bookkeeping last year.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, employs his wife, Kathy, as his campaign manager. She was paid $21,791 over four months, including a $7,500 bonus last November.

New York Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop: Daughter Molly was paid $46,995 as his 2004 campaign's finance director.

California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Wife Rhonda Carmony makes $40,000 a year as his campaign manager.

Another Blair Victory

Here's an article that proves that sticking to your guns and supporting George Bush can pay off at the ballot box, where the PEOPLE decide:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050416/344/fghn8.html

Who Ya' Gonna Call? MYTH-BUSTERS!

Wendy E. Long posted this excellent article at http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050414-090344-7389r.htm

Here's an excerpt:

"Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.

Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the"checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments.

The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act; hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no"traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years thateither party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off thefederal bench."

Hillary's Liberal Score!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050411-091454-3073r.htm

"Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), which proudly describes itself as thenation's "premier liberal lobbying organization," gave Mrs. Clinton a score of 95 percent for her 2004 votes. It was the fourth year in a row Mrs. Clintonachieved that high score."

This article is definitely worth reading.....

Fair Tax...Fact or Fiction?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID%3d43764

"The FairTax offers long-needed tax relief – in the form of lower prices, nearly nonexistent compliance costs and the ability to choose how much to spend in taxes – to all Americans, while eliminating the income tax and allowing Americans to keep 100 percent of their paycheck."

The Unforeseen Implications of Beneficence

Tsk, tsk, California.

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/075hstwb.asp

"Politicians caught between the political correctness of supporting Native Americans and voters outraged by the proliferation of casinos don't know which way to turn."

Here's an excellent article from Linda Chavez:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lchavez/2005/lc_04141.shtml

Some excerpts:

"Why is it that the DeLay story has so dominated the media when the story of former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's amazing guilty plea produced barely a footnote? The New York Times covered the story April 2 on page 10 with fewer than 600 words. And no one in the national media has seemed very interested in exploring why Berger stole and destroyed highly classified documents. "

It would seem that the main operational difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton's posse is better at destroying damning evidence.......

Follow the Money

From www.aim.org :

“Follow the Money” to George Soros
And One-Worlders Against John Bolton

WASHINGTON -- The pro-world government group known as Citizens for Global Solutions has given campaign contributions to four Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee now opposing John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

In addition, according to Accuracy in Media (AIM), billionaire currency manipulator George Soros made financial contributions to six of eight Democratic members of the committee.

“Reporters like to say they ‘follow the money’ in political stories,” said AIM editor Cliff Kincaid, “but they’ve ignored the financial facts that may help explain why liberals on the Foreign Relations Committee are opposing Bolton.”

AIM’s review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows that a political action committee associated with Citizens for Global Solutions contributed financially to Foreign Relations Committee members Senators Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd, Russell Feingold, and Barack Obama.

Citizens for Global Solutions used to be known as the World Federalist Association (WFA), a group that favors world government and global taxes on American citizens to pay for it.

The organization, which is leading the opposition to Bolton through television ads and a “Stop Bolton” web site, also contributed to the Republican committee chairman Senator Richard Lugar, who declined to issue a statement of support for Bolton when his nomination was announced.

Two groups explicitly associated with George Soros – the Open Society Policy Center and the American Progress Action Fund -- are working with Citizens for Global Solutions to defeat Bolton.

Soros, who spent $23 million in an effort to defeat President Bush’s re-election, made financial contributions to six of eight Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee – Senators Obama, Boxer, and Bill Nelson, Joe Biden, Paul Sarbanes, and John Kerry.

When Liberals Disagree with You

This is a liberal's idea of a Fact-Driven Debate:

Clinton Legacy Falling Apart, Volume 97

Here is a link to a rather lengthy article detailing the failure of the signature plan of Clinton's presidency: Attack the rising crime rates of the early 1990s by putting 100,000 more cops on America's streets.

Click HERE

Here are some excerpts to whet your whistle:

"Federal audits of just 3% of all COPS grants (Community Oriented Policing Services) have alleged that $277 million was misspent. Tens of thousands of jobs funded by the grants were never filled, or weren't filled for long, auditors found. And there's little evidence that COPS was a big factor in reducing crime."

"The link between COPS grants and lower crime rates has been further obscured by the experience of cities such as Oklahoma City, which did not participate in the police hiring program - and yet saw crime rates drop by as much as those in cities that got grants."

In other words, throwing money at the crime problem achieved......

NOTHING

Kerry Gets Funny

Here's the link to the following article that shows FAILED Presidential candidate John F. Kerry still has a sense of humor.(Either that or he just can't get over the fact that more people voted against him than anyone in US history)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3127452

Many voters in last year's presidential election were denied access to the polls through trickery and intimidation, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told a voters' group today.



"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters.

"There is no magic wand. No one person is going to stand up and suddenly say it's going to change tomorrow. You have to do that," he said.

Kerry supporters have charged that voting irregularities in largely Democratic areas made it difficult for voters to cast ballots in the November election. A lawsuit in Ohio cited long lines and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, but the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the suit.

Kerry also cited examples today of how people were duped into not voting.

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

Kerry has never disputed the outcome of election, saying voting irregularities did not involve enough votes to change the result. Bush won the pivotal state of Ohio by 118,000 votes, giving him enough electoral votes to win re-election.

Bush supporters have denied using voter intimidation tactics to keep people from going to the polls. A call to the Republican National Committee media office was not immediately returned today.

Earlier this year, Kerry joined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in filing voting reform legislation. The Count Every Vote Act would create a federal holiday for voting, require paper receipts for votes and authorize $500 million to help states upgrade voting systems and equipment.

Congress' investigative agency, the Government Accountability Office, has also begun looking into the handling of provisional ballots and malfunctions of voting machines. The study could lead to changes in the election process.

Kerry, using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery, suggested the United States should spend as much time promoting democracy at home as it does abroad in countries like Iraq.

"We need to go about the business of making our own democracy in America work better," he said.

Social Security = Welfare

A Liberal Journalist's Confession

This from the WashingtonPost.com"

By Robert J. Samuelson Let's suppose Congress approves President Bush's "personal accounts" forSocial Security. The Social Security system would then become the largest singleinvestor in U.S. stocks. By 2050 Social Security could hold 25 percent of allstocks, estimate economists at Goldman Sachs. This estimate reflects a modestplan for personal accounts; other proposals would permit bigger stock purchases.

Hardly anyone has thought about the economic consequences of concentrating somuch stock in the Social Security system. My hunch is that it would turn out tobe a huge mistake -- or worse. The idea of personal accounts is that Wall Street should triumph over thewelfare state. Just the opposite might occur: The welfare state would triumphover Wall Street.

The money flowing into personal accounts would not be investedaccording to the "free market." Individuals wouldn't have the freedom to investin Microsoft, General Electric or eBay. Instead, it would be invested accordingto rules made by Congress, influenced by politics. There would be unrelentingpressure from interest groups, "experts" and public opinion.

The danger is that investment decisions would become unduly politicized andthat the economy would consequently suffer. The rules governing which stockscould or couldn't be purchased for personal accounts might become irrational orcounterproductive. The reason is that what personal accounts aim to accomplishis inherently difficult, perhaps impossible.

The economic and social roles ofWall Street and the welfare state are fundamentally opposed. The attempt toblend them through personal accounts would create massive contradictions. The role of Wall Street is to move investment funds to their most productive uses.

If the process works well, the economy expands, living standards rise andthe stock market advances. But inevitably there are losers, because Wall Streetis an exercise in collective risk-taking. A free market means continuous trialand error. By contrast, the welfare state is an exercise in collective risk reduction. Itstrives to provide some security -- aka the "safety net" -- against life'smisfortunes and the economy's upsets.

It aims to protect society's poorest andweakest members. We have many welfare programs. Social Security is the largestand most popular. Personal accounts would be a strange hybrid: part "private" investment, partpublic entitlement. This is a hard straddle. There's an unavoidable dilemma:Making personal accounts safer for individuals might make the stock market lessuseful -- less dynamic -- for society.

The conflict has already surfaced.One criticism of personal accounts is that they might subject beneficiaries tohuge losses, because stocks fluctuate erratically. The administration countersthat it would allow accounts to be invested only in "index funds" -- forexample, funds representing the Standard & Poor's 500 stocks.

The idea is to minimize the risk of big losses on individual or speculative stocks. Soundssensible. But it would bias the market in favor of existing companies,industries and technologies. It would discriminate against the new, exciting anddifferent.

If investment became too hidebound, it might slowly degrade the economy'sperformance. Conflicts like this won't conveniently fade away. Nor wouldpersonal accounts, if created, remain fixed for all time. As publicentitlements, they would create their own ferocious politics. Millions of Social Security beneficiaries and countless interest groups would periodicallyagitate to modify the accounts, reacting to their own experiences or interests.

The specter of rule changes would constantly hang over Wall Street; the largerthe personal accounts became, the more the rules would affect how the stockmarket behaves. What looms is a massive expansion of government power over Wall Street. To besure, it would occur gradually, over decades, and its outlines are murky.

The irony is that it comes from "conservatives." Facing the rising costs of federalretirement programs, practical politicians seek ways to cover the costs withoutresorting to unpopular benefit cuts. Putting payroll taxes into stocks seems one painless way out.

But even good stock returns can't erase the basic problem. The costs offederal retirement programs are growing much faster than any plausible portfolioof private accounts. Sometime between now and 2030, with the aging of the babyboom generation, the relentless increases in costs will force significantbenefit cuts, big tax increases or both. The bipartisan consensus is to ignorethis inconvenient fact. In their hearts, the Democrats want to do nothing.

Republicans have at least proposed something. Unfortunately, it may be worse than nothing.

Maybe Monica Happened for a Reason

I came across this article :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/11/MNGKIC697J1.DTL

In this news item I found the following passage:

"But as budget surplus projections grew on the back of a stock market bubble, Republican leaders wanted the money for across-the-board cuts inincome taxes."

Clinton never had the chance to do something about Social Security because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that broke out, leading to his impeachment.

If Clinton and Congress had actually gotten something done with Social Security, theywould have done so with financial projections of a booming stock market.

As we all know, that stock market was a bubble waiting to burst,which it eventually did.

Where would we be now, how many retirees would be screwed, if we had made major changes based on stock market projections that we now know to be false?

Ouch.

More Hipocrisy on Parade

With all of the Liberal Media attempts to lay the smackdown on Tom DeLay on alleged ethics violations, an interesting news item comes to light:

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/4063107/detail.html

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fund-raising gala for the senator, the Justice Department said Friday."

(Insert Dan Rather reporting joke here)

Another excerpt:
"The FBI previously said in court papers that it had evidence the former first lady's campaign deliberately understated its fund-raising costs so it would have more money to spend on her campaign. "

I could go on and on about this, but I'll let my Father weigh in on this:

3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Democrats Finally Admit It!!!!

The Weapons of Mass Obstruction Playbook being used by the Democrats to hinder the progress of legislation on Capitol Hill has finally come to light for all the world to see.

In other words, the Democrats are now PUBLICLY ADMITTING their emptiness of ideas. Here's the link:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/04/11/foes_cite_progress_vs_bush_agenda/

And now here are some quotes from it:

"Democratic leaders say the focus on opposition, rather than on their own legislative proposals, has allowed them to hold up President Bush's plans to remake Social Security."

"They are honing a message that highlights what they portray as Republican abuses of power..."

Why aren't they "honing a message" that gives us a better alternative than what they are opposing.

O.K. DEMOCRATS, WE KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AGAINST.
CARE TO TELL US WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY FOR?

A key to the current cluelessness of the Left wing is embodied by Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada. ''It took a while for us to realize that we weren't in the majority."

Memo to Mr. Reid: YOU'VE BEEN IN THE MINORITY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS!

Commission Report: Bush Didn't Lie

The following summary of the WMD commission report is found at:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1044640,00.html

Saturday, Apr. 02, 2005

A presidential commission chaired by former Senator Chuck Robb and retired Judge Laurence Silberman was blunt in assigning blame for the flawed conclusion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), one of the major reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq.

WHO SCREWED UP? The finger pointed directly at U.S. spy agencies: prewar knowledge of Saddam's WMD was "dead wrong." Most of the material it was based on was "either worthless or misleading." Important for the President, the report states that his Administration didn't pressure intelligence analysts to support its conclusions about Iraq. The panel passed on the issue of whether senior officials hyped the bad info to justify the invasion.

DID ANYTHING GO RIGHT? There was praise for the spy community's discovery of Libya's nuclear program, an act that led Muammar Gaddafi to close it.

SO EVERYTHING'S O.K. NOW, RIGHT? Nope. The bottom line is that many of the causes of the intelligence breakdown in Iraq persist and "are still all too common" in American espionage. These include a "poorly coordinated" bureaucracy that failed to question key information from an Iraqi defector who was a "fabricator" known as Curveball. Even today the U.S. "knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors," notably Iran and North Korea.

CAN THE PROBLEM BE FIXED? The commission's 74 recommendations are designed to "transform" intelligence by undoing bureaucracies and smashing competing CIA, FBI and Pentagon fiefs. The report stresses the need to develop more human agents instead of relying so much on technology.

So if the spy agencies screwed up, that means that:

BUSH DID NOT LIE.

HE SIMPLY USED THE INOFORMATION HE WAS GIVEN.

Now, can we get back to our regularly schedule life?

Hipocrisy in Action.Org

Check out this excerpt from http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/031705/rahm.html

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) strategy, still in development, aims to make ethical charges the touchstone of those campaigns and would use several high-profile local races to create a national image of corruption in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives."

Why not just tell the American electorate "Here's what we're for and here's what we believe should be the agenda for America and this is why we want you to vote for us,"???

Is it because they can't be honest about that agenda?

Is it because they can't be honest and they know it's a losing agenda, unless the judiciary gets involved??

I got curious, so I visited http://www.dccc.org/about/index.aspx and found the following:

"President Bush and the Republican leadership would have the United States "go it alone" in dangerous conflicts around the globe ignoring the small interconnected planet on which we all live."

Gee, it's a shame that no Democrat has ever planted the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. You know, the kind where FREE ELECTIONS ARE THE ORDER OF THE DAY.

And then this:

"We cannot let Tom DeLay and the Republican Congress continue to derail and intimidate in their quest to overrule our American priorities."


"OUR American priorities" WHOSE priorities??? The DNC's??

Please consult the election results of Novemeber 2004.

Liberal causes were voted down across the board!

Americans Want Social Security Changes Soon

Why does there seem to be a disconnect between our leaders and the public on Social Security reform?

Every polling organization seems to be scurrying about trying to prove that the public does or does not want reform, a little reform or lots of reform.

Here's another poll to add to the mix:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6658

Can we just have a national referendum? You know, an "up-or-down" vote on this?

Let the Obstruction begin

Now we know why Kerry and Kennedy went to Rome. Was it really for the Pope's funeral, or was it just a convenient excuse?

I'm not accusing them .... it's just amazingly convenient.

http://ww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152808,00.html

Good Things Take Time

Here is a well-written article about the Middle East that I found quite interesting:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050411/11edit_2.htm

Here is an excerpt:

"These states all face a demographic tsunami: Roughly half the Arab world is under 25, and these young people will need 100 million jobs over the next few decades. Economic growth of that scale requires a market economy, which in turn requires the rule of law, pluralism, property rights, a public life for women, and accountability. Such reforms can be achieved only at the expense of the entrenched elites--the hereditary monarchs, the perpetual presidents, and the revolutionary mullahs."

Had you rather those 100 million have the chance to get a job, or have them flying planes into our skyscrapers?

The Floodgates of Legalized Death are Opened

If this story is true (it has yet to be verified) it helps send us further down the Slippery Slope:

First came the legalized judicial homicide of Terri Schindler Schiavo, now comes the case of Mae Magouirk in Georgia. Here's the url to the story:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688

In a situation recalling the recent death of Terri Schiavo in Florida, an 81-year-old widow, denied nourishment and fluids for nearly two weeks, is clinging to life in a hospice in LaGrange, Ga., while her immediate family fights desperately to save her life before she dies of starvation and dehydration.

Mae Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose nor in a "vegetative state," when Hospice-LaGrange accepted her as a patient about two weeks ago upon the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, 36, an elementary school teacher.

As it turns out, Beth Gaddy has actually stated her reason for trying to starve her grandmother:

"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

The dehydration is being done in defiance of Magouirk's specific wishes, which she set down in a "living will." In her living will, Magouirk stated that fluids and nourishment were to be withheld only if she were either comatose or "vegetative," and she is neither. Nor is she terminally ill, which is generally a requirement for admission to a hospice.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE DEMOCRATE OR REPUBLICAN...DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS MADNESS!

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS!!

THIS IS AMERICA, NOT NAZI GERMANY!!!

Audio Interview with Kenneth Mullinax

Here is the link to the interview conducted live on-air during the Glenn Beck Program:

http://www.glennbeck.com/audio/free-audio.shtml

This is the nephew of the 81 year old woman being forcibly dehaydrated against her wishes by her grand-daughter.

C'MON AMERICA, DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!

Waaah! The Constitution Won't Bend to Our Liberal Agenda!

Harry Reid and the Complainers went to the Supreme Court trying to grandstand against the Republicans doing something that IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED by the Constitution.
LINK

Another Crossroad

Once again, America finds itself at another crossroad along the Path to Destiny.

Just a few short months ago, a similar intersection was approached: the Presidential Election of 2004.

Fortunately, America made a proper decision, choosing to take a path that might, just might lead us along a closer path the Founders had laid out for us.

Without digressing into partisan politics, suffice it to say that America chose a more morally conservative road to its future.

And then, Terri Schiavo died.

Her death has touched off a debate that is still in its formative stages. And yet, the substance of the debate reaches down into parts of the American Psyche that we all would rather leave alone.

This very fact alone will cause many Americans to turn away from the debate and thus remove their voices from the national discourse that is sure to follow.

For others, it will enflame the innermost passions of who we really are. By this I mean who we are AS INDIVIDUALS.

The issues surrounding Terri’s death are powerful enough to rip off the veneer of our public selves and reveal who we are at the core.

Many shall scream about government intrusion, states’ rights, federalist hypocrisy, religious extremism, judicial arrogance and so on.

These and other issues will be brought to the forefront when the Senate attempts to bring judicial nominees to a vote on the Senate floor.

The matter here is simply one of education. In other words if more people actually knew what is in the Constitution, this would silence the controversy.

A brief look at our nation’s founding documents will reveal what is truly at the center of the forthcoming debate.

Our Founders felt it necessary to declare in writing the reasons for separating from the increasing oppression of British rule. In the Declaration of Independence we find this passage:

“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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

So our Founders recognized that certain of our rights are 1) given to us by our Creator and 2) they are unalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

The Founders also stated that of a form of Government “becomes destructive” it is the right of the people to alter it.

How did they intend on doing that? We find that answer at the beginning of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

According to the Founders, their purpose in ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to do the following:

to form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

It is the right and responsibility of the American electorate to “alter” their government when it “becomes destructive” to the “certain unalienable Rights” of its citizens.

Remember: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” ?????

Laying aside partisan politics and the ubiquitous demagoguery that is sure to spew forth from Washington, the heart of the debate caused by the Terri Schiavo case is simply one of Separation of Powers outlined in our Founding Documents.

This is not a debate of government intrusion, states’ rights, federalist hypocrisy, or religious extremism, but it is ultimately a CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

I submit to you that the Judicial Branch of the government has stepped beyond the scope of its authority.

To wit:

Article. I. U.S. Constitution
Section 1.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "

LEGISLATIVE POWERS ARE ONLY GIVEN TO THE U.S. CONGRESS, NOT THE JUDICIARY

Article. III.
Section. 1.

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"

The Federal Court system is under the authority of the U.S. Congress. Congress, the duly elected representatives of the People, has the power to dictate to every court in America EXCEPT THE SUPREME COURT.

In ignoring the legislation from Congress asking the Federal courts to review the facts of the Schiavo case, the Federal Judiciary committed insubordination.

THAT is at the heart of this case.

Also at the heart of this case is the immediate result of that insubordination: the violation of Terri Schiavo’s “due Process” rights as afforded in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The over-reaching of the Federal Judiciary is highlighted by a comment made by Howard Fineman on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olberman”:

“this may be a different situation because in the intervening decades the judiciary has taken on such a larger role, almost a legislative role in our lives and that's what sort of invited this contest that's about to take place. “—Howard Fineman, on MSNBC’s “Countdown” March 31, 2005

What is desperately needed is for us to divorce ourselves, as much as possible, from the passions incurred by this event and to focus our energies on affecting a REBALANCING OF POWERS among the Three Branches of Government.

That is truly the only way to ensure that we never find ourselves at this particular crossroad again.

Welcome to "Conflicts-of-Interest-R-Us"

That's right boys and girls. There's more to the Terri Schiavo case than meets the eye. Terri's wacky husband, Darth Michael, has links to some of the creepiest people this side of your local slime pit!

Speaking of links, here's one to the story uncovering it all:

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover033105.htm

More updates forthcoming.....