Hypocritical Liberal Outcry Over "The Path to 9/11"

Great post from Bruce Thornton about the liberal outcry over the ABC television special The Path to 9/11. If you haven't seen the special yet, find a friend who taped it and watch it. It is some of the most riveting television I have ever seen (second only to "24").

The whining of Democrats and ex-Clintonistas about the “docudrama” The Path to 9/11 has given us all another example of liberal mendacity and hypocrisy. Start with the total silence of the usual civil liberties suspects to say a word about this attempt at stifling someone’s First Amendment right to free speech. Where are the ACLU and its usual clichés about the “chilling effects” of such attempts? Where are all the blowhard academics who noisily defended the noxious Ward Churchill?

Read the whole thing.

Just Keep On Spending....

Excellent post from Frank Lasee, who is a big proponent of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. It is too good to carve up, so I include it here in its entirety.

You can read about TABOR here and sign up for his e-mailings by sending an email to LaseesNotes@yahoo.com.

It is very hard to argue with his logic. But logic never stops the left.

What if I told you that you and your family owe more than half-a-million dollars (I bet you don’t recall borrowing that money either)? Worried about the payments? You should be.

According to a recent analysis in the USA Today, federal, state and local governments have added $10 trillion in the past two years in more borrowing - 13% above inflation. Our government’s debt now stands at nearly $60,000,000,000,000 (sixty-trillion).

That’s more than $500,000 and growing for every American household. For each family it’s growing about $25,000 per year. That’s more than some people make in a year!

Should you be concerned? What should we do?

Our governments will continue to increase taxes and borrowing to cover the interest on the debt. Unless we do something different.

Who is going to make good on this debt?

Do you think our governments should be able to continue to spend more money than they take in year in and year out? (Click here to register your vote – here for Yes, there for No).

For the last several decades, Congress – under the control of both Republicans and Democrats – has increased spending, taxing and borrowing. When they don’t have enough to cover their spending, they borrow more, and more, and more.

This Washington mentality has infected many state governments and is becoming a disease increasingly popular among local governments as well. In Wisconsin, our state debt is nearly $9 billion. That’s about $6500 for a family of four and that’s just part of the government debt.

Match this with the fact that many family incomes are stagnant. Withincreased costs of energy, health care, taxes, and other living costs eroding modest pay raises, it is clear we have a long term issue. Every year government gets more expensive. The price we all pay goes up.

Our government is piling up debt and continues to grow at levels we cannot sustain long term. We must get a handle on this. Taxpayers need protection from a government that takes ever more.

We must require all governments to live on a responsible budget and ask all of us before they dig deeper in our pockets. We need another check on our government. Because our government is setup on the principle of checks and balances.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (click here for an explanation) will put a growth ceiling on taxes, spending, and borrowing for all governments. As I have written it, it recognizes the relationship that exists between the state and local governments for the delivery of valuable government services. The delivery of government services is a federal, state, and local partnership that has to be recognized.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights provides taxpayers with more input into how and what our government does for us and how much it costs us.

What do you think about this issue? Click on this link and send me an email with your thoughts.

Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

If you know of anyone else who would like to receive Lasee’s Notes, please send an email to LaseesNotes@yahoo.com.

Another great video

Check this one out, too.

This ad for the new Honda Accord required 606 takes, cost $6M to shoot and took three months.

This is all real--no computer graphics involved.

Fascinating.

Bush Was Right

So, this video is making the rounds. Check it out here.

Send it to your favorite liberal. It will make his/her head spin.

Sanity 1, Feingold 0

So, the Senate voted 89-10 to renew the Patriot Act, despite the best efforts of our own Russ Feingold, chief Senatorial Blowhard (well maybe not chief--he does have a lot of competition--Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Kerry).

Really, when are the people of Wisconsin going to tire of his political antics and ego? He blatantly wastes time and money in his lust for political gain. Culture of corruption? How about culture of disruption? He is a disgrace to our state.

This Guy is Absolutely Nuts

Unbelievable story about the loony high school teacher, Jay Bennish, and his unbelievable rant caught on tape by one of his sixteen-year-old students.

He doesn't just stop at comparing Bush to Hitler (honestly, this one is getting old...is it because liberals have such a limited knowledge of history that they can only think of Hitler to compare Bush to? How about Stalin? Mussolini? Attila the Hun? Really, variety is the spice of life!). Here are a few of Bennish's other choice themes.

*He suggests that the U.S. has no right to destroy Columbian drug fields and suggests that the Peruvians, Iranians and Chinese have the right to drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco fields.

*He says that the economic system of capitalism is at odds with humanity and human rights. (Huh...which economic system does he think is aligned with human rights?)

*He says that the U.S. is the single most violent nation on the planet.

*He suggests that the United States is deliberately killing innocent people.

*He says that we want to keep the world divided. He calls the CIA dirty minds and dirty tricks who want to kill people just for the sake of killing people.

*He accuses the U.S. of over 7,000 terrorist attacks against Cuba.

*He suggests that when Al Qaeda attacked America, in their view, they were not attacking innocent people. He suggests that the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target, because it housed FBI offices and "huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East....people with blood on their hands, as far as they (Al Qaeda) are concerned."

And here's a great quote, near the end of the tirade...

Here's the real homeland security (I assume that here he points to either a map of the U.S. or the U.S. flag), fighting terrorism since 1492, I mean, to many Native Americans, that flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag. It represents the people that came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, raped, pillaged, destruction, etc. So it all depends upon various peoples' perceptions.

You can hear the audio of the entire rant at Charlie Sykes's weblog. You have to listen to Bennish's tone of voice--the mere transcript (developing at Michelle Malkin) doesn't do it justice.

Student Sean Allen shows amazing restraint and maturity for a sixteen year old. He is the lone voice of dissent in a class full of seemingly brainwashed automatons (or kids too intimidated to argue).

I would be hopping mad at the thought of my son or daughter having to sit through this tirade, while this guy is being paid by the taxpayers to teach geography.

Check out Slapstick Politics for some other interesting info, as well as another student who had Bennish for an American history class.

This is why we read the blogs....

...because you never will hear this type of information in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, all the media seems capable of is giving us daily body counts of U.S. casualties and predicting that Iraq is on the brink of civil war.

Fortunately, 'the rest of the story' is readily available FOR FREE to anyone with internet access.

The Mudville Gazette posted this letter from the Mayor of Tell 'Afar, Iraq to the U.S. Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.

I include it here in its entirety.

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall’ Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.

To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi’s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.

The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage.

God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.

Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven’t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.

NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall ‘Afar, Ninewa, Iraq

Latest Greatest Bumper Sticker

I love it!
The self-righteousness of the Democrats (especially Nancy Pelosi) is staggering.
Does anyone know where you can order this? I'd love to plaster it next to my W'04 bumpersticker on my SUV.

New Media...1.....Dick Durbin...0

The blogosphere is abuzz with the story of Paul Mirengoff (of Powerline fame) questioning Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin at a press event in Washington during the Senate Judiciary hearings on the NSA Wiretapping Program.

Here is the story from Powerline. Be sure to watch the video. Read this post, too.

It is fascinating to watch Durbin do a double take when he realizes that Mirengoff is asking him a real question that requires thought, rather than the 'puffballs' usually thrown his way, allowing him to pontificate at will.

Here'w what Hugh Hewitt had to say.

If you, like me, are just catching up on Powerline's Paul Mirengoff's posing tough but very fair questions to Senators Kennedy and Durbin, take the time to go and read up on the background.

Now that you are back, here's the key to understanding what Paul has done, and it isn't just exposing Durbin as an insecure blowhard.

Paul has illuminated the fact that much of the D.C. press corps that allegedly dogs the heels of the powerful are either (1)tame or (2)lightweights.

There are members of the press in both categories, but more often than not, the lamesness of the questions put to the powerful is because the "reporter" is simply unprepared to ask hard, complicated questions and to be ready with follow-ups. Look at Paul's questions: Do you think there are five reporters on the Hill who could have framed those questions? How much easier to ask: "Were you satsified with Attorney General Gonzales' candor today, Senator" and leave it at that.

Durbin et al are not used to tough questions because they are accustomed to lightweight reporters.

It should be a badge of honor among Hill reporters if a Senator or Representative bristles at a question that, while put respectfully, obliges the elected to actually pause and think.

Would that every reporter pulled a Mirengoff on a daily basis.

Can you imagine a world where the bloggers attend press conferences and ask real questions? Could be the beginning of the end of inarticulate blowhards in Congress.

Gonzales and the Judiciary Committee Part I

I stayed up late last night reading the transcripts of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The partisan rhetoric from Leahy, Feinstein and Feingold were stunning. Durbin was also out of line, but mainly incoherent. Gonzales has the patience of a saint.

Here, for your reading pleasure, are what I consider the 'highlights' (or 'lowlights' as the case may be) of the hearings.

I will blog more on this later, but wanted to get this published while it is fresh...

Your tax dollars at work. Anyone reading this who thinks we would be more safe if these people were making the counter-terrorism decisions is delusional. As you read this exchange from the beginning of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, imagine the President negotiating with these people to try to get their permission to wiretap a suspected conversation between Al Qaeda and their terrorist counterparts in the U.S., plotting an eminent attack.

This first section is long, but you need to read it--this is how the hearing opened.

SPECTER: We have told the attorney general we would require his presence all day. We will have 10-minute rounds, which is double what is the practice of this committee. And, as I've announced in advance, we will have multiple rounds.

There has been some question about swearing in the attorney general and I discussed that with the attorney general. He said he would be willing to be sworn.

After reflecting on the matter, I think it is unwarranted because the law provides ample punishment for a false official statement or a false statement to Congress under the provisions of 18 United States Code 1001 and 18 United States Code Section 1505.

The penalties are equivalent to those under the perjury laws.

There has been a question raised as to the legal memoranda within the department. And at this time and on this showing, it is my judgment that that issue ought to be reserved to another day. I'm sure it will come up in the course of questioning.

The attorney general will have an opportunity to amplify on the administration's position. But there is a fairly well-settled doctrine that internal memoranda within the Department of Justice are not subject to disclosure because of the concern that it would have a chilling effect; that if lawyers are concerned that what they write may later be subjected to review by others, they'll be less than candid in their positions.

SPECTER: This committee has faced those issues in recent times with requests for internal memoranda of Chief Justice Roberts. And they were not produced. And they were more relevant there than here because of the issue of finding some ideas as to how Chief Justice Roberts would function on the court if confirmed.

Here we have legal issues and lawyers on this committee and other lawyers who are as capable as the Department of Justice in interpreting the law.

One other issue has arisen, and that is the issue of showing a video. And I think that would not be in order.

The transcripts of what the president said and the transcripts of what you, Mr. Attorney General, said earlier in a discussion with Senator Feingold are of record --this is not a Sunday morning talk show -- and the transcripts contain the full statement as to legal import and legal effect. And I'm sure that those statements by the president, those statements by you, will receive considerable attention by this committee.

That's longer than I usually talk, but this is a very big subject.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman?

SPECTER: This is the first of a series of hearings -- at least two more -- because of the very profound and very deep questions which we have here, beyond statutory interpretation and the constitutional implications of the president's Article 2 powers.

And this is all in the context of the United States being under a continuing threat from terrorism.

But the beauty of our system is the separation of powers, the ability of the Congress to call upon the administration for responses, the response of the attorney general in being willing to come here today, and then the Supreme Court to resolve any conflicts.

SPECTER: I'd like to yield now to...

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a quick clarification?

SPECTER: Senator Feingold?

FEINGOLD: Heard your judgment about whether the witness should be sworn. What would be the distinction between this occasion and the confirmation hearing where he was sworn?

SPECTER: The distinction is that it is the practice to swear nominees for attorney general or nominees for the Supreme Court, or nominees for other Cabinet positions, but the attorneys general have appeared here on many occasions in the 25 years that I have been here and their might be a showing, Senator Feingold, to warrant swearing.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just say that the reason that anyone would want him sworn has to do with the fact that certain statements were made under oath at the confirmation hearing. So it seems to me logical that, since we're going to be asking about similar things, that he should be sworn in this occasion, as well.

LEAHY: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might on that point -- if I might on that point, of course, the attorney general was sworn in on another occasion other than his confirmation, when he and Director Mueller appeared before this committee for oversight.

And I had asked the chairman, as he knows, earlier that he should be sworn on this. And I made that request right after the press had pointed out where an answer to Senator Feingold appeared not to have been truthful. And I felt that that is an issue that's going to be brought up during this hearing, and we should go into it.

LEAHY: I also recall the chairman and other Republicans insisting that former Attorney General Reno be sworn, which she came up here on occasions other than her confirmation.

I think, especially because of the article about the questions of the senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, I believe he should have been sworn. That is, obviously, the prerogative of the chairman.

But I would state again, and state strongly for the record, what I've told the chairman privately. I think in this instance, similar to what you did in April with Attorney General Gonzales and Director Mueller, both of whom were sworn, and as the chairman did on -- insisted with then-Attorney General Reno, I believe he should be sworn.

SPECTER: Well, Senator Leahy and I have not disagreed on very much in the more than a year since we've worked together as the ranking and chairman, and I think it's strengthened the committee.

And I did receive your request. And I went back and I dug out the transcript and reviewed Senator Feingold's vigorous cross- examination of the attorney general at the confirmation hearings.

And I know the issues as to torture, which Senator Feingold raised, and the issues which Senator Feingold raised as to searches without warrants.

And I have reviewed the provisions of 18 USC 1001 in the case involving Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted under that provision; and have reviewed the provisions of 18 United States Code 1505, where Oliver North was convicted. And there are penalties provided there commensurate with perjury.

And it is my judgment that it is unnecessary to swear the witness.

LEAHY: But, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, if the witness has no objection to being sworn, why not just do it and then not have this question raised here? I realize only the chairman can do the swearing in.

LEAHY: Otherwise, I'd offer to give him the oath myself, insofar as he said he was willing to be sworn in. But if he's willing to be, why not just do it?

SESSIONS (?): Mr. Chairman...

SPECTER: Well, the answer to why I'm not going to do it is that I've examined all the facts and I've examined the law and I have asked the attorney general whether he would object or mind and he said he wouldn't. And I have put that on the record.

But the reason I'm not going to swear him in is not up to him. Attorney General Gonzales is not the chairman; I am. And I'm going to make the ruling.

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: I would point out that he's been here before this committee three times. The other two times he was sworn. It seems unusual not to swear him in this time.

FEINGOLD (?): Chairman, I move the witness be sworn.

SPECTER: The chairman has ruled. If there is an appeal from the ruling of the chair, I have a pretty good idea how it's going to come out.

FEINGOLD (?): Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

SPECTER: All in favor of the ruling of the chair, say "aye."

(UNKNOWN): Roll call.

SPECTER: Opposed?

FEINGOLD (?): Ask for a roll call vote.

SPECTER: The clerk will call the roll.
I'll call the roll.

(LAUGHTER)

SESSIONS: Out of the question.

(LAUGHTER)

SPECTER: Senator Hatch?

HATCH: No.

SPECTER: Senator Grassley?

GRASSLEY: No.

SPECTER: Senator Kyl?

KYL: Mr. Chairman, is the question to uphold or to reject the ruling?

SPECTER: The question is to uphold the ruling of the chair, so we're looking for ayes, Senator.

(LAUGHTER)
LEAHY: But we're very happy with the noes that have started on the Republican side, they being the better position.

HATCH (?): I'm glad somebody clarified that.

SPECTER: So the question is, "Should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn?"

(CROSSTALK)

SPECTER: By proxy for Senator Brownback, aye.
Senator Coburn?

(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: We've got enough votes already.

Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Emphatically, no.

(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: Aye.
The ayes have it.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.

(This guy is clueless. So, now is he accusing the other Senators of lying? This guy would make a GREAT President. His rhetorical skills are permanently stuck at the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" level. Next, he will be 'double dog daring' the chairman NOT to have Gonzales sworn in. Why does he HAVE to be from Wisconsin?)

SPECTER: Would you repeat that, Senator Feingold?

FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.

SPECTER: The practice is to rely upon the staffers. But without counting that vote -- well, we can rephrase the question if there's any serious challenge of the proxies.
This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.

SPECTER: But I've found that patience is a good practice here.

(Really? Patience? What has that bought us so far, exactly? An insinuation that the Attorney General of the United States is likely to lie to a Congressional committee unless he is under oath? Puh-lease.)

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman (OFF-MIKE) very disappointed that we went through this process.

This attorney general, in my view, is a man of integrity. And having read the questions, as you have, that Senator Feingold put forward, and his answers, I believe he'll have a perfect answer to those questions when they come up at this hearing.

And I do not believe they're going to show he perjured himself in any way or was inaccurate in what he said.

And I remember having a conversation with General Myers and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and one of the saddest days in their career was having to come in here and stand before a Senate committee and raise their hand as if they are not trustworthy in matters relating to the defense of this country.

And I think it's not necessary that a duly confirmed Cabinet member have to routinely stand up and just give an oath when they are, in effect, under oath and subject to prosecution if they don't tell the truth.

I think it's just a question of propriety and good taste and due respect from one branch to the other.

And that's why I would support the chair.

LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I don't...

SPECTER: Let's not engage in protracted debate on this subject. We're not going to swear this witness, and we have the votes to stop it.

Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I have stated my position why I believe he should be sworn in. But I understand that you have the majority of votes.

(Now we progress rapidly into baseless FUD-slinging--fear, uncertainty and doubt. Here are some excerpts from the day. Bold indicates my emphasis.)

LEAHY: But my concern is the laws of America. My concern is when we see peaceful Quakers being spied upon, where we see babies and nuns who can't fly on airplanes because they're on a terrorist watch list put together by your government.

(No, really, he actually SAID this. I am not making this up.)

GONZALES: Our enemy is listening. And I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place, and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the war on terror.

(A chilling thought that is totally lost on Leahy and the Dems.)

LEAHY: You talk about authorization for use of military force. We have a chart up over there; says that, "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons that he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations of persons, in order to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Now, basically, what you're saying is that Congress must have understood to have authorized the president to do it: not that we actually did but that we must have understood it.
Now, this authorization is not a wiretap statute. I was a prosecutor, Senator Specter was a prosecutor, a lot of prosecutors here, we know what a wiretap statute looks like. This is not it.

(Here, Leahy tries to make the lame point that the Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against the terrorists, but that didn’t include wiretapping. In other words, we can shoot ‘em, blow ‘em up, lock ‘em up, but please, please, please, don’t listen in on their phone conversations??? Gonzales fires back with Hamdi…)

GONZALES: Sir, there is no specific language, but neither is there specific language to detain American citizens. And the Supreme Court said that the words "all necessary and appropriate force" means all activities fundamentally incident to waging war.

LEAHY: But there wasn't a law -- they didn't have a law specifically on this.

(Pay careful attention, here. Leahy just argued that there is no law against detaining American citizens without a warrant. Huh?)

GONZALES: Sure they did, sir.

LEAHY: Using the Jackson test, they have a law on wiretapping. It's called FISA. It's called FISA. And if you don't like that law, if that law doesn't work, why not just ask us?

GONZALES: Sir, there was a law at question in Hamdi. It was 18 USC 4001(a). And that is: You cannot detain an American citizen except as authorized by Congress.

And Hamdi came into the court saying, "The authorization to use military force isn't such a permission by Congress to detain an American citizen."

And the Supreme Court -- Justice O'Connor said -- even though the words were not included in the authorization, Justice O'Connor said: Congress clearly and unmistakably authorized the president to detain an American citizen. And detention is far more intrusive than electronic surveillance.

(Senator Grassley raises the question of whether Gonzales is looking into the leak from the New York Times. Where is the outrage from the Dems who were foaming at the mouth and calling for the firing of Karl Rove over the non-event of the year--the 'outing' of Valerie Plame???)

BIDEN: For if, in fact, the only people being wiretapped or e-mails read are Al Qaida operatives contacting American citizens, I don't think you're going to find anybody in America saying, "Oh, my God, don't do that."

(Shameless doublespeak. You won't find anybody in America saying don't do it--except a bunch of politically-motivated people on Capitol Hill, since that is EXACTLY what the Dems are saying. But, if they tell us frequently enough that they are NOT saying it, they think they can SAY it without any political ramifications.)

BIDEN: How will we know, General, when this war it over?

(Gotta love Biden. He thinks he's in a different hearing. Isn't this the "What are we doing in Iraq Hearing? Oh, no, that's over in the Hart Building!)

BIDEN: This is why the Intelligence Committee has the responsibility to be able to look at someone and have an absolute guaranteed assurance under no circumstance is any American being eavesdropped upon unless it's coming from a foreign soil and a suspected terrorist, and do it under oath and do it under penalty of law if they've misrepresented.

(This comment reveals the complete unreasonableness of the Dems. This is an unachievable standard. Even TRYING to attain it would tie our intelligence people up in knots while the terrorists will laugh all the way to the jihad. An ‘absolute guaranteed assurance under no circumstances…under penalty of law if they’ve misrepresented.” The American people do not want to see our intelligence community hamstrung by this impossible standard.

This next exchange occurs between Kohl & Gonzales. Kohl can’t decide whether he should be more outraged that the President is ‘breaking the law’ by ‘domestic spying’ on calls between Al Qaeda and people within the U.S., or that Bush is NOT wiretapping conversations that occur exclusively within the U.S. between known Al Qaeda operatives. His aides forgot to give him today's "Talking Points Memo".)

KOHL: Just to go back to what Senator Biden and then Senator Kyl referred to about Al Qaida-to-Al Qaida within the country, you're saying we do not get involved in those calls...

GONZALES: Not under the program in which I'm testifying, that's right.

(CROSSTALK)

KOHL: It seems to me that you need to tell us a little bit more because to those of us who are listening, that's incomprehensible. If you would go Al Qaida-to-Al Qaida outside the country -- domestic- outside the country but you would not intrude into Al Qaida-to-Al Qaida within the country -- you are very smart, so are we, and to those of us who are interacting here today, there's something that unfathomable about that remark.

GONZALES: Well, Senator, we certainly endeavor to try to get that information in other ways if we can. But that is not what the president...

KOHL: No, but isn't -- we need to have some logic, some sense, some clarity to this discussion this morning.

(I agree--a good start would be to eject Kohl & Leahy from the meeting.)

GONZALES: I will say that our staff at the Department of Justice -- these are the experts in the FISA process -- has in essence tripled since 2002. I think we all realized following the attacks of 9/11 that we needed to get more folks on board to help us with the FISA application.

It still takes too long, in my judgment, to get FISAs approved. I've described in my opening statement the process that's involved here.

FISA applications are often an inch thick. And it requires the sign-off by analysts out at NSA, lawyers at NSA, lawyers at the department, and finally me. And then it's got to be approved by the FISA Court.

I've got to tell you -- I was going to try to make this point in response to a question from the chairman -- the members of the FISA Court are heroes, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, they're available day or night, they're working on weekends and holidays, because they want to make themselves available. They're killing themselves, quite frankly, making themselves available to be there to sign off on a FISA application if it meets the requirements of the statute.

GONZALES: But we still have some problems.

(Anyone who has ever waited in line at the DMV to renew their driver's license does NOT want to see bureaucracy seep into our defense against terrorism.

Next at bat, Ms. Feinstein, who withers under counterattack from Gonzales.)

FEINSTEIN: The Intelligence Committees have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program. They have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to Al Qaida or what minimization procedures are in place. We know nothing about the program other than what we read in the newspapers.

(Really? What the heck is she doing all day? Getting her nails done? Doesn't she know anyone on the Intelligence Committee? And by the way, Diane, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the newspapers....)

FEINSTEIN: And so it comes with huge shock, as Senator Leahy said, that the president of the United States in Buffalo, New York, in 2004, would say, and I quote, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false. Do you agree?

GONZALES: No, I don't, Senator. In fact, I take great issue with your suggestion that somehow that president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people.I have his statement, and in the sentence immediately before what you're talking about, he said -- he was referring to roving wiretaps.

And so I think anyone...

FEINSTEIN: So you're saying that statement only relates to roving wiretaps, is that correct?

GONZALES: Senator, that discussion was about the Patriot Act. And right before he uttered those words that you're referring to, he said, "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talk about wiretaps, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order."

GONZALES: So, as you know, the president is not a lawyer, but this was a discussion about the Patriot Act, this was a discussion about roving wiretaps. And I think some people are trying to take part of his statement out of context, and I think that's unfair.

FEINSTEIN: OK, fair enough. Let me move along.

(Geesh, the press never stops me when I quote the President out of context....)

Continued in Part II.....

This is what the Democrats Would "Protect" Us From

From Powerline.

One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the United States, the NSA didn't listen to them. It turned out that the "Kahlid" who was receiving the calls in San Diego was one of the September 11 hijackers. In fact, he was one of the hijackers who murdered Debra's brother, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77.

This is what Democrats and the news media call "domestic spying." Do the Democrats really want to return us to the days when al Qaeda could call its American operatives with impunity?

I think that would be a 'yes', if you ask Feingold, Leahy, Feinstein, Kohl or Durbin.

Islamic Riots Against Cartoons

The recent riots and threats of death against the Danish cartoonist and editors who published unflattering images of the prophet Mohammed demonstrate another example of increased transparency in the middle East.

Muslims countries and their state-run newspapers have been publishing horrific cartoons showing Israelis as demons and blood-sucking vampires for years. Yet they have zero tolerance for anyone who exercises free speech in criticizing their religion--a religion, that, quite frankly, has been the inspiration for true terrorism and the deliberate spilling of innocent blood as a tactic.

In a startling move reminiscent of "Oh yeah? Well, YOUR mother wears army boots!" retort, an Iranian newspaper is sponsoring a "Holocaust Cartoon Contest".

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Are these guys a laugh riot, or what? An interesting thematic choice of topic, since their leader has proclaimed the Holocaust a 'myth'.

(By the way, I haven't heard any Hollywood celebrities recently admonishing us Midwestern rube-types that "Islam means peace" since Muslim youths started torching cars in Paris).

Victor Davis Hansen, as usual, provides thought-provoking analysis at RealClearPolitics.

He makes several great points:

*Despite all of their bluster during the lead-up and beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Europeans have not proven any better at dealing with Islamofascist regimes than George W. Bush.

*The Europeans appeasement strategy towards Islamic immigrants has not bought them any respite from terrorism and domestic uprising.

We have seen thousands of Muslims demonstrating in the street and heard their religious leaders calling for retribution against the cartoonists (tonight, one Imam called for his hands to be cut off). This is not some fringe minority of misguided terrorists. This is a large group of Islamic fundamentalists.

If there is a 'moderate Islam', which we are told actually exists, why are they silent? This would certainly be the time to come out against the rhetoric and violence and call for cooler heads to prevail.

Live Blogging the State of the Union Address

I am watching the FoxNews coverage of Bush's State of the Union speech. So, the pre-speech patter.....apparently, Cindy Sheehan was removed from the hall before the President arrived. She was the guest of someone (?) to be determined. She tried to unfurl some sort of sign and was removed. I'm sure there will be more about this later. Send her back to Venezuela.

Ok. The President is introduced. Lots of loud cheering and clapping. All stand up.

He starts with a tribute to Coretta Scott King. Great opening.

Then makes an attempt to reach across the aisle with an olive branch, offering to do his part to work together and overcome differences for the good of the country.

Road of isolationisma and protectionism may seem wide and inviting....but ends in destruction.

Historic long term goal, seek the end of tyranny in our world. Future security of America depends upon it.

Democracies replace resentment with hope...and join the fight against terror. We will act boldly in freedom's cause.

in 1945, two dozen lonely democracies in the world, today there are 122.

More than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. We don't forget the other half. Demands of justice require their freedom as well.

No one can deny the success of freedom. But some men fight and rage against it.

Good. He comes out with an olive branch and then boldly re-states the rationale behind his foreign policy--spread freedom throughout the world. And explains why it is important. Gets a standing ovation from evryone. Nancy Pelosi is even standing.

If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. There is no peace in retreat and there is no honor in retreat.

We would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals. The U.S. will not retreat from the world and we will never retreat from evil.

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism.

We accept the call of history to rescue the oppressed.

Now he lays out his plan for Iraq, explaining that we are helping them establish a government, build infrastructure and get rid of terrorists. He is reminding everyone of the progress we have made in Iraq.

We are in this fight to win and we are winning.

Democrats sit. Many do not clap. Wow....Democrats cannot clap that we are winning? These people are beyond belief. Of course, it is obvious to everyone that they only gain politically if we lose in Iraq. What a choice.

Will continue to reach out and seek your good advice.

Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy.

He hits them right between the eyes. They are sitting, stone-faced. Kerry looks down at his lap.

Our nation has only one option, we must keep our word, defeat our enemies and stand behind our military in this vital mission.

Bush now gives a tribute to the military. Mentions Dan Clay and reads from a letter he left to his family.

"I know what honor is...I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to."

Dan Clay's parents and wife stand to applause.

The only way to defeat the terrorists is to...offer the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change.

He mentions Egypt, Palestine, calls for Hamas to reject terrorism and embrace peace.

Liberty is the right of all humanity.

Now he turns to Iran.

Regime sponsors terrorists and that must come to an end. Nations of the world must not permit Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

Speaks directly to the people of Iran.

Our nation hopes to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

Isolation ties our hands in fighting enemies, but helping abroad....AIDS, infant with malaria, young girl sold into slavery....nice sequeway from our military agenda to why the U.S. has a responsibility to help other countries.

Mentions offensive against terrorism in U.S. Thanks the Homeland Security, FBI, Law Enforcement.

They deserve the same tools they use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime....re-authorize the Patriot Act.

Before 9/11, our government failed to connect the dots. To prevent another attack, based on the authority given me by the Constitution.

Mentions NSA wiretapping.

Federal courts have approved. Appropriate members of Congress informed. Terrorists have been apprehended. Will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

Dems sit throughout. Hillary smiling and shaking her head. What the heck is her alternative?

To draw support, must be clear in our principals and always be ready to act. privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. Reject isolationism and defeat. Mentions Roosevelt and Truman.

Need steady, bi-partisan support. Protect our country, support men and women who defend us and lead this world toward freedom.

Now he moves to economy. Economy is healthy & vigorous. Created 4.6M new jobs more than Japan and the EU combined. Can't be complacent. Competitors like China and India. Old temptation. Protectionism. Wall off our economy. Government needs a larger role--centralize and increase taxes. Immigrants are important--economy can't function without them.

Agenda for a nation that competes with confidence, raise standard of living and create new jobs. Keep economy growing. Economy grows when Americans have more of their own money. Tax relief can set to expire. American families face a tax increase they do not expect. Calls for Dems to make the tax cuts permanent.

Dems sit.

Need to be good stewards of tax dollars. Cut spending. Reduce more than 140 programs performing poorly. Will save another $14B cut def in half by 2009. Lieberman claps.

Members of Congress work on earmark reform. McCain claps loudly. Pass line-item veto. Republicans stand.

In a few years, 78 million baby boomers turn 60--two of my dad's favorite people--me and President Clinton. Gets a laugh, presumably from both sides. Retirement of baby boomers will strain the federal government. When the boomers retire, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will comprise 60% of the entire federal budget. Congress did not act on my proposal to save Social Security. In un-classy act, Dems stand and clap. Bush gets excited and wags his finger at them.

Rising cost of entitlements is a rising cost that is not going away. Every year we fail to act the situation gets worse.

Calls for orderly and secure borders and an effective immigration enforcement and border protection. Rational, humane guest worker program.

A competitive America needs affordable healthcare. They all stand for this--including Hillary, who couldn't get it done when Bill was in office. Government has a responsibiloity to provide healthcare for poor and elderly. Help people afford insurance coverage. Health info technology to reduce cost and avoid medical error. Give small companies similar advantages to big companies. Make coverage portable - switch jobs without losing insurance.

Calls for Congress to pass medical liability reform this year.

Competitive America requires affordable energy. America is addicted to oil, often imported from unstable parts of the world. Will spend $10B to develop new energy sources. 22% increase in clean energy research. Change power sources-- low-emission coal, safe nuclear energy and wind power.

Also change how we power automobiles. Increase reserach to develop batteries for hybrid vehicles, hydrogen-power, and ethanol from other sources. Make new kind of ethanol practical and competitive w/in 6 years.

Also wants to reach another goal. Plan to reduce 75% of oil from mideast by 2025. Dramatically improve environment to move beyond a petroleum-based economy, make dependence on mid -East oil a thing of the past.

To keep America competitive, we need to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Tonight, I announce the American Competitiveness Initiative. Provde a firm grounding in math and science. Double federal commitment to research in the physical sciences. Develop nanotechnology, supercomputing, alternative energy.

Provide R&D tax credits to encourage private sector research. America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.

Need to encourage children to take more math & science. We will train 70,000 high school teachers to teach advanced math and science courses and recruit 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in schools.

Support the American Competitiveness Initiative.

We are a compassionate, decent, hopeful society. Violent crime fallen to lowest level since 1970s. Drug use down 19% since 2001. Fewer abortions. Number of children born to teenage moms has fallen 12 years in a row.

America is in a quiet transformation. Life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Welfare reform, abstinence, adoption, drug education has made a difference.

Many parents are concerned about the direction of our culture and the health of our basic institutions. Activist courts redefine marriage. Unethical politiicians. Must never give in to belief that America is in decline.

We need courts that deliver equal justice under the law. Announces two new justices - Roberts and Alito. Thanks Senate for confirming. Justices should be servants of law and not legislate from the bench. Thanks Sandra Day O'Connor for her years of service.

We need to prohibit egregious uses of research - cloning, human/animal hybrids, buying or selling human embryos. Life is a gift from Creator. Should not be put up for sale. Even Dems have to stand.

Elected officials need to uphold the public trust. Strengthen ethical standards of Washington. Dems stand for this, too, smiling They think it mainly applies to Republicans. Are hoping that the Abramoff scandal rubs off on Bush. 'Culture of corruption'....blah, blah, blah.

Encourage caring adults to get involved in the life of a child. Led by Laura Bush.

The Federal government has given over $85B to the people of the Gulf Coast. Need to address deeper challenges. Some citizens have felt excluded from promise of our country. We will work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope and rich in opportunity.

Brings up the fact that half of all AIDS cases are African American. Provide new funding to end waiting list for medication for AIDS in America. Working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups. Goal of no new infections in America.

Will we turn back, or finish well. History is written in courage. We will lead freedom's advance, compete and excel in global economy. America is optimistic, faithful and confident. May God bless America.

Jimmy Carter - International Embarrassment

Really. This guy was a bad enough President. Is he really this out of touch?

According to this article in The Jerusalem Post, Jimmy Carter

urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.

"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.

He added that if international law barred donor countries from directly funding a Hamas-led government than the US and the EU should bypass the Palestinian Authority and provide the "much-needed" money to the Palestinians via non-governmental channels such as UN agencies.

"Regardless of the government, I would hope that potential donors find alternative means to be generous to the Palestinian people [even] if the donor decides to bypass the Palestinian government completely," Carter said, stressing that his main concern was to avert the "suffering" of the Palestinian people, which he said could lead to a new cycle of violence.

He noted that the heavily funded Palestinian Government would run out of money at the end of next month.

I wonder if he thinks we should also send them guns, grenades and IEDs? Good grief.

Can we donate him to France?

Hamas in Charge - Now "Put Up" or "Shut Up"

I actually believe that the recent Hamas victory in the Palestinian parliamentary election could be a good thing because it is time for Hamas to 'put up or shut up'.

At first glance, it appears to be the West's worst nightmare--an argument against democratic elections in extremist Islamic nations. And although it may be more of a Palestinian uprising against the corruption and greed of the Fatah party, it may have a very positive effect in the middle East in the long run.

First of all, Hamas is now not only out of the shadows, but clearly in charge of the Palestinian future. They have the responsibility (and now the authority) to make life better for the Palestinian people. They are now in charge--of mundane but critically important things such as schools, healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, the economy. They are not deep in the skill-sets required for running a country (which presumably involves more than shooting AK-47s into the air and blowing themselves up).

Add to this the 'double-whammy' of losing billions in international aid as legitimate countries decline to assist a terrorist-run state. (According to this FoxNews story, the U.S. has contributed more than $1.7B to the area since 1993. I am shocked.)

So, Hamas will no longer have the luxury if sitting on the sidelines and fomenting insurrection against the Palestinian Authority for all of their internal and external political failures. They can no longer secretly leverage the misery of their people to induce them to produce suicide bombers.

They can no longer hide in the shadows and disavow knowledge and responsibility for terrorist activities that occur under their noses.

They can now decide whether they want to gain legitimacy in the court of world opinion by renouncing their desire to obliterate Israel and begin seeking peaceful solutions for their problems.

They have a clear choice--and a choice that will be transparent to all--do they continue down the path of destruction, war and terrorism or do work to create a better life for their people--a life of peace, prosperity and freedom?

As Golda Mier once said, "We can only have peace with the Palestinians when they start loving their children more than they hate Israel". The next few months will be interesting ones, indeed.

Feingold Supports Fruitless Filibuster

According to an article in Sunday' s Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, bylined by Craig Gilbert, Russ Feingold says that he will support a filibuster of the vote on Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice, even though he said Friday in Milwaukee that he did not expect the filibuster to succeed.

So, in other words, Russ is willing to waste taxpayer dollars in an incredibly divisive politically-motivated tactic. He is willing to filibuster an eminently qualified candidate for the Supreme Court--not on fitness--but on purely speculative ideological grounds.

Do the Democrats honestly believe that the American people are not paying attention here? The bottom line is that George Bush won the last election. One of the reasons people voted for him was because of the upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court.

Since the Democrats have been unable to defeat Bush at the polls (despite him being an idiot, a warmonger, a liar, a toady of Dick Cheney and the puppet of Karl Rove), they have decided that they will try to force the will of the minority on the rest of us through protracted obstructionism.

I have a few words for them, "Get over it. You lost. Get on with it."

They seem to have forgotten all about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a former attorney for the ACLU--for heaven's sake), who held such mainstream political views as a constitutional right to prostitution and support for co-ed prisons, who was passed through the Senate by a vote of 97-3.

I resent Feingold, who was elected to represent all the people of Wisconsin, ignoring a large part of his constituency in order to further his own personal political career (which is an additional thing not likely to succeed, but that is a blog of another day).

I resent his willingness to smear a good and qualified man for the sake of making a political statement. (What happened to all of the liberal rage about 'smearing' that arose during the ridiculous Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson debacle?)

I resent his complete disregard for the judicial nomination process to get his name into a few headlines.

I think that Feingold would be wise to think long and hard before going down the filibuster trail. We have heard him accuse the Bush administration of being a 'culture of corruption'. Well, what is more corrupt than wasting taxpayer time and money on a futile filibuster of a qualified SCOTUS candidate? To me, that is just the same as out-and-out stealing of taxpayer money.

Guilty until Proven Innocent on Wiretapping Charges

The Left is hinging their main objection to the NSA wiretapping on the basis of its legality. They are accusing President Bush of engaging in 'illegal' wiretapping (domestic spying).

So, I have a few questions for them....

If it was proven that Bush acted within his legal rights as the President protecting U.S. citizens in wartime, would you still object to the wiretapping? Is your objection purely on a legal basis, or do you just object to wiretapping in general?

The fact is, that everyone is leaping to the conclusion that the President broke the law when nothing of the kind has been proven. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

What source of information is being used to determine that the NSA wiretapping was illegal? The New York Times article? Other media sources?

There is a some excellent analysis on this topic on Powerline, which, by the way, is authored by three very smart attorneys in the Minneapolis area. I was going to bombard you with them, but it's probably better if you go there at your leisure and read them yourself.

I think they raise some very reasonable and informed questions about whether the wiretapping is truly illegal.

Since much of the mainstream media and the left-wing of the Democratic party seem obsessed with opposing anything that Bush does, I think that mainstream America is starting to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, many of the predictions of vast civil rights violations (little old ladies being dragged screaming from the library) have not come to fruition, whereas we know that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Hard to get all lathered up about some vague 'potential' for civil rights violations when we have evidence that what we are doing is working.

I think the public is tiring of "the sky is falling" politics of the left and looking for some good old-fashioned bi-partisan problem solving. And, by the way, if listening in on phone conversations between know Al Qaeda operatives and unknown persons in the United States is illegal, then I think most people would agree that the law needs to be changed.

The world is a vastly different place than it was before 9/11 and the rapid advent of communication technology, such as cell phones, Blackberries, instant messaging and the like. I want our legislators to start working with the President to do whatever they can to make sure our laws make sense in this new age. I'd like to see more determination to protect law-abiding American citizens than protect the rights of those who would abolish ANY laws or liberties throughout the world.

The Democrats are scaring me more & more about their ability to govern our country in the post-9/11 era.

Bush Speech Today at Kansas State University

Bush just finished an amazing speech at Kansas State University. In it, he reminded the audience about who we are fighting in Iraq, why we are fighting them and what are the consequences of NOT fighting them.

He also talked about the wiretapping program. This is not 'domestic spying'--it is listening in on conversations between known Al Qaeda operatives and people within the U.S.

I will look later to see if it is available on C-SPAN or the Internet and post a link her

Bush needs to repeat this over and over to combat the misinformation in the media. The Democrats need to quit fighting him and start working with the Republicans to update our ability to gather the intelligence we need in a wireless, cell-phone, Blackberry/Treo, instant messaging world.

At the end of the speech, Bush offered to take questions. There was a moment of silence and then someone in the crowd yelled out, "You done good, Mr. President!" and the hall erupted into applause and cheers.

Update: You can read the text of the speech here, although it is not as good as hearing it delivered.

End of the Spear Premiere

We went to see "The End of the Spear" last night at the Marcus West Towne Theater. It was probably the most amazing movie I have ever seen. By the end of the movie, there was not a dry eye in the house, including the male viewers.

It told the story of five missionaries--Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully and Peter Fleming--who were martryed by the fierce, isolated Waodani tribe in the Ecuadorian jungle. This event happened fifty years ago and is narrated through the eyes of Steve Saint, who was five years old when his father was speared to death.

The Waodani was the most murderous culture on the planet, with a homicide rate of 50-60%, due to their practice of revenge killing. (50-60% of ALL deaths from the late 1800s to the 1950s were homicides).

One fact that the movie did not really bring out was the reason for the missionaries' urgency in reaching the Waodani. According to articles written by Steve Saint, they felt that the Waodani were in danger of extermination. Besides killing themselves in record numbers, they were drawing the ire of the government and Big Oil. According to a 10-year old article from Steve Saint (accessible here), the Waodani had attacked and killed workers from Shell Oil, making them a potential military target. This increased the urgency of the missionaries trying to reach them.

The widows of the slain missionaries demonstrated incredible love and faith in God's calling by going to live in the jungle with the Waodani after their husbands were killed.

The production quality of the film was excellent and I appreciated the fact that the actors were NOT marquee-names who would have distracted from the believability of the movie. The aerial shots of the forest and river were breathtaking. I would highly recommend it, although some of the spearing scenes--while not as graphic as many--are probably too intense and frightening for children. A mature teenager could probably handle it.

There is a book, Through the Gates of Splendor, by Elisabeth Elliot and a documentary movie, Beyond the Gates of Splendor, which both sound very worthwhile.

I predict that Hollywood will generally ignore this movie, or give it unfavorable reviews. This is ironic, because this film depicts the values that Hollywood elites always pretend to espouse, but truly do not understand--love, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, courage, faith, belief and humility.

Go see it. You won't regret it.

Insanity in Power in Iran--Past Behavior is a Great Predictor of the Future

In an editorial last July, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had this to say about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president-elect of Iran...I have marked some items in boldface for emphasis...

Editorial: Is leader a hostage-taker?

So what if it turns out that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president-elect, really was among the young militants who kidnapped U.S. diplomats and others in Tehran in 1979 and held them hostage for 444 days? Several of the former hostages swear that he was, and like many statements emanating from Tehran in recent years, denials from Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials don't have a whole lot of credibility.

It would hardly be surprising if the ex-hostages were right about Ahmadinejad. But it seems to us that what Ahmadinejad was and did as a young man more than 25 years ago is much less important than the kind of man he is now, what kind of leadership he intends to supply and what kind of policy the United States and other countries adopt in dealing with him and other Iranian leaders.
Several countries, especially those that have recently emerged from revolution, are led by people with controversial and even bloody biographies. It wouldn't be surprising, therefore, if the leaders of Iran today should include a man who was directly involved in the revolution of 1979, of which the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of Americans was perhaps the most spectacular part.

That kidnapping was not only a violation of international law and the protocols of diplomacy but a cruel and criminal act perpetrated against men and women who had devoted their professional lives to the peaceful resolution of disputes. But many Iranians, at least at the time, believed the embassy and the hostages to be symbols and agents of U.S. support for a hated dictator.
Ahmadinejad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards and was supported by Iran's conservative clerics during the recent presidential campaign. But he and his aides insist he was not among those who took over the embassy. Another claim, that he was involved in the assassination of an Iranian Kurdish leader in 1989, also has not been documented.

Several other facts about Iran, however, are not only obvious but exigent: It is a nation of 68 million people and the seat of an ancient civilization, is a major oil producer, holds a pivotal geographic position in the Middle East (it borders, among other important countries, Iraq), has long supported the Hezbollah terror group and may be secretly attempting to build nuclear weapons. For these and several other reasons, its relations with the U.S. and other countries are extremely important.

When he takes office on Aug. 4, Ahmadinejad will not be Iran's top ruler; conservative clerics hold most of the instruments of power in that country. But Ahmadinejad apparently has the trust of these clerics, which means he probably has their ear, and he also has the demonstrated support of the Iranian people. It just makes sense for the U.S. and other countries to get a better fix on him - not so much what he was like more than 25 years ago but what he is now and what he wants to do.

So what if he kidnapped Americans 25 years ago? Well, how about this--the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I think the fact that he participated in a hostage-taking indicates the kind of person he was and is. This was not just a frat prank. Perhaps if he had admitted his role in the kidnapping and apologized to the world, it might have been reasonable to reserve judgement.

But, based on his comments about the Holocaust as a myth, the desire to wipe Isral off the face of the earth and the celebratory glee over Ariel Sharon's medical emergency, it looks as though the hostage incident was a great predictor of what kind of leader Ahmadinejad would become.

But perhaps we should wait until he launches a nuclear attack on Israel to really decide "what he is now and what he wants to do".

Or maybe not.

Just Do It - Confirm Alito

In a stunning editorial today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel urged confirmation of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court of the United States. Why stunning? Because the J/S rarely supports anything proposed by the Bush administration.

You can read the whole editorial here. Here is a quote from the piece.

Democrats are understandably concerned about specific red flags in Alito's record but should nonetheless reject a filibuster. Nor should they move, as it appeared likely late last week they would, to delay the committee's vote. Both would be antithetical to the democratic process in this specific case.

That's because, though we would have preferred Alito to be more open about his judicial philosophy, he did make one case quite effectively. He is a conservative jurist. This is what the electorate, albeit narrowly, indicated it wanted when it re-elected George W. Bush as president in 2004. There can be no reasonable claim that voters did not know this to be a likely consequence of their votes.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I made the same argument here in my editorial published in the Journal Sentinel on November 5th.

Here is the whole editorial.

Battle lines have been drawn.

Democrats have their talking points memorized. By "caving to the far right" and nominating U.S. Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito, "a conservative ideologue" for the Supreme Court who will "turn back the clock on human rights," President Bush is "dividing the nation."

Dividing the nation? Let's take a deep breath here.

Someone needs to remind these folks of the basic concept of our form of government. We have three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.

The citizenry gets to choose the first two through the election process. The president (elected by the people) gets to select the judges for the Supreme Court, and the Senate gets to approve them.

So, indirectly, even though people don't get to vote for judges, they elect the people who can select and influence who is appointed to the bench.

Since Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, this works fairly well. When the Democrats win, they appoint liberal judges. When the Republicans win, they appoint conservatives. This helps achieve a balance on the court that represents the interests of the American people.

As a reminder to many who seem to have forgotten, Bush won the last election by a 3 million popular vote margin. (Remember all the gnashing of teeth in 2000, when Democrats claimed that Bush "stole the election" because Al Gore won the popular vote? We haven't heard any reference to "popular vote" from the Democrats since November 2004.)

When the majority put Bush in the White House, one of their expectations was that he would nominate conservative jurists who would bring the Supreme Court back into balance.

That's the way it works. It worked that way for President Clinton when he nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is about as "centrist" as Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, since they seem to understand how our government works. The Senate gets to vet the nominees and make sure they have the qualifications to fulfill their duties - not to overturn the president's right to place judges.

At the conclusion of the hearings, their job is to vote "yea" or "nay" on the confirmation. It is a simple and logical process that has served this country well for many years.

Unfortunately, Democrats cannot come to grips with the fact that they lost the last election. Since they can't legitimately appoint their own judges, they have come up with the loony concept that the president should nominate Supreme Court justices that will "bring the country together."

Even if this were an achievable result, the Democrats are the last people on Planet Earth that have any credibility in this area. Listen to the vindictive rhetoric from Democratic Sens. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer on a daily basis and picture them playing a role in "bringing the country together."

But let's stop laughing for a moment and consider their suggestion. There is one simple problem. There is no way to nominate a justice that will "bring the country together."

The voters who elected Bush expect him to follow through on his campaign promise to appoint conservative judges. We are not interested in having him compromise on this point. We are not interested in having him nominate judges he thinks will be conservative.

We want a nominee with a track record and judicial experience. We want a nominee with the capability of providing thought leadership on the bench. We want a justice with the personal power to persuade his more liberal colleagues to consider an alternative viewpoint.

We are not interested in having Bush play some sort of political appeasement game with our judicial appointments. If the Democrats want the right to appoint judges, they need to earn that right, fair and square.

Until then, they can start "bringing the country together" by dropping their oppositional defiance and starting to do their jobs. One of their jobs is to give serious consideration to Bush's nominee and vote him up or down based on his qualifications.

Anything less is a repudiation of our system of government and a disenfranchisement of the 62 million voters who put Bush in the White House.

I'm glad to see that the Journal Sentinel agrees. Their editorial was well-written, logical and reasonable. It should have the anti-Bush contingent foaming at the mouth.

Debate Continues Over Intelligent Design

Very interesting article on Intelligent Design from the Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is sponsored by the Discovery Institute and is focused on supporting scientists and research on intelligent design vs. neo-Darwinism and encouraging schools to teach a less biased view of Darwinian evolution.

The article is written by Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the CSC who received his Ph.D. in the History & Philosophy of Science from Cambridge.

I have oftened wondered why it is that any questioning whatsoever about the theory of natural selection drives the mainstream scientific community (and mainstream media) insane? Any attempt to get schools to at least acknowledge that the theory of evolution contains a lot of logical holes and inexplicable assumptions raises cries of "separation of church and state".

The media mischaracterizes intelligent design as back-door Creationism and leaves it at that. Dr. Meyer provides a thoughtful defense of intelligent design:

But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?

Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.

Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.

Dr. Meyer goes on to give some examples of how recent discoveries in nanotechnology support the idea that pure random chance could not produce the variability and complexity of life on this planet.

But why do we say this? What tell-tale signs of intelligence do we see in living organisms?

Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.

This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

The article goes on to give additional supporting evidence and is well worth the read.

Science derides advocates of Intelligent Design as utter ignoramuses who base their theories on blind faith and circular reasoning. However, the very theory of natural selection is completely circular. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, states that the most fit organizations produce the most offspring and therefore, survive and dominate the population. The problem? There is no definition of what makes an organization more 'fit' other than that it has produced offspring and therefore survived. This fails to really explain anything.

In addition, evolution is based on the blind faith in completely random events occurring over and over again which strain the imagination. In Meyer's example above, the odds of all 30 proteins coming together simultaneously (and this is just one example) are beyond astronomical. It would be akin to throwing a plate of spaghetti against the wall and having it form an exact replica of the Mona Lisa.

When it all comes down to it, both evolution and intelligent design represent their own system of beliefs. Evolution requires as many leaps of faith (actually more) as intelligent design. Someday, even 'rational' scientists may update the theory of evolution with a new theory based on recent discoveries. How will they explain to generations of people who were taught evolution as a 'fact' that it is no longer 'true'? Better to present it as a theory and discuss the facts that support the theory, as well as the evidence that disputes it.

Isn't the whole idea of education to teach children to think for themselves? To question, explore and discover? To challenge the 'status quo' and seek new paradigms?

Science cannot claim a superiority over religion when it suppresses any dissent or debate. Intelligent design advocates are happy to acknowledge the existence of evolutionists and debate them on the merits of their theories. Why are evolutionists afraid to do the same?

MSM Coverage Disaster in Mine Collapse

This morning, as I was getting ready for work, my husband bounded up the stairs with good news--the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was reporting that 12 of the 13 trapped miners in the West Virginia coal mine collapse had survived.

The front page story, with the bold headline "Miners Found Alive", bylined by the Associate Press, Cox News Service and the Washington Post, ran in Wednesday's J/S.

Wonderful news! Unfortunately, it proved to be completely untrue. Editor & Publisher commented on the failure of the media on their website.

NEW YORK In one of the most disturbing media performances of its kind in recent years, TV news and many newspapers carried the tragically wrong news late Tuesday and early Wednesday that 12 of 13 trapped coal miners in West Virginia had been found alive and safe. Hours later they had to reverse course.

For hours, starting just before midnight, newspaper reporters and anchors such as MSNBC's Rita Cosby interviewed euphoric loved ones and helped spread the news about the miracle rescue. Newspaper Web sites announced the happy news and many put it into print for Wednesday at deadline. "They're Alive!" screamed the banner headline in the Indianapolis Star. Even the Los Angeles Times, three hours behind on the West Coast, carried the front page headline: "Suddenly There is Joy: 12 Miners Found Alive." The Boston Globe at least added a qualifier in its banner hed: "12 Miners Reportedly Found Alive."

In many cases, the same papers stopped the presses later, after tens of thousands of copies were printed and distributed, to carry the correct report. USA Today, for example, printed an update under the headline: "Official: 1 Miner Survived."

Some editors blamed officials, including the governor, for misleading reporters. In reality, rescuers had only confirmed finding 12 miners--and were checking their vital signs. But what leaked out to anxious family members was that 12 were found alive. The coal company, it later admitted, knew that the early reports were false 20 minutes after they started circulating, but did not quickly correct them.

A coal company spokesman explained, ''Let's put this in perspective. Who do I tell not to celebrate? I didn't know if there were 12 or 1 [who were alive].''

The Washington Post story by Ann Scott Tyson, which appeared on the front page, opened: "A dozen miners trapped 12,000 feet into a mountainside since early Monday were found alive Tuesday night just hours after rescuers found the body of a 13th man, who had died in an explosion in an adjacent coal mine that was sealed off in early December.

Later in the story, she even added this explanation: "The miners had apparently done what they had been taught to do: barricaded themselves in a pocket with breathable air and awaited rescue."

The New York Times story on the Web by James Dao was also headlined with no doubt raised: "12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion." But the story, which also ran in print on Page One, pulled back a bit from reporting the news as proven fact: "Forty-one hours after an explosion trapped 13 men in a West Virginia coal mine here, family members and a state official said 12 of the miners had been found alive Tuesday night.

"Joe Thornton, deputy secretary for the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, said the rescued miners were being examined at the mine shortly before midnight and would soon be taken to nearby hospitals. Mr. Thornton said he did not know details of their medical condition." It then reported family members calling it a miracle.

In its print edition, the Times story carried this qualfied headline: "12 Miners Are Found Alive, Family Members Say."

An Associated Press dispatch first carried the news at 11:52 pm: "Twelve miners caught in an explosion in a coal mine were found alive Tuesday night, more than 41 hours after the blast, family members said. Bells at a church where relatives had been gathering rang out as family members ran out screaming in jubilation." But many newspapers, and all of cable TV news, reported the rescue as fact, not merely based on family claims.

A later AP account by Allen Breed grew more, not less, certain: "Twelve miners caught in an explosion in a coal mine were found alive Tuesday night, sending family members streaming from the church where they had gathered during the nearly two-day ordeal. Joyous shouts rose of 'Praise the Lord!'"

Today, AP carried a story explaining that Gov. Manchin "spoke to The Associated Press from his cell phone shortly after relatives said they had received word the miners were safe. 'The rescue people have been talking to us. They told us they have 12 alive,' Manchin said. He said later he went to the mine site to try to confirm the news when rescuers said there had been miscommunication and not all had survived."

Anderson Cooper, the CNN host, ripped the coal company at 3 a.m. for not correcting the wrong reports for so long, but did not explain why CNN went with the good news without strong and clear confirmation.

The Chicago Tribune, which had reported the rescue, later carried a new story on its site opening with, "Jubilation turned to anger early Wednesday when relatives of 12 coal miners believed alive in a West Virginia coal mine blast were told that 11 of their loved ones were dead. One survivor was in critical condition at an area hospital."

It took nearly three hours for the coal company to correct the reports. It is unclear why the media carried the news without nailed-down sourcing. Some reports claim the early reports spread via cell phones and when loved ones, and the governor, started celebrating most in the media simply joined in.

"About the confusion, I can't tell you of anything more heart- wrenching than I've ever gone through in my life. Nothing," Gov. Manchin, who had helped spread the good news, said.

The sole survivor of the Sago, W.Va., disaster, identified by mining officials as 27-year-old Randal McCloy, was in the hospital in critical condition, a doctor said. When he arrived, he was unconscious but moaning, the hospital stated.

The governor later indicated he was uncertain about the news at first. When word of survivors began circulating through the church, he hadn't heard it, he said.

Scott Libin, a faculty member at the Poynter Institute, wrote today,
"This case reminds us of a lesson we learned, at least in part, from Hurricane Katrina: Even when plausibly reliably sources such as officials pass along information, journalists should press for key details....If we believe that when your mama says she loves you, you should check it out, surely what the mayor or police chief or governor says deserves at least some healthy skepticism and verification. I understand how emotion and adrenaline and deadlines affect performance. That does not excuse us from trying to do better."

PROGRESSION OF AP HEADLINES

Families Say 12 W.Va. Miners Found Alive (11:59 PM)

12 Trapped W.Va. Miners Found Alive (12:34 AM)

Singing Erupts After Miners Found Alive (2:49 AM)

Families Say 11 of 12 W.Va. Miners Dead (3:06 AM)

Miners Reported Alive After Blast Are Dead (4:08 AM)

12 Confirmed Dead in W.Va. Mine Blast (5:26 AM)

Feds Vow Full Probe of W.Va. Mine Blast (6:58 AM)

Jubiliation [sic] Turns to Anger, Outrage (7:20 AM)

So, does this remind anyone of post-Katrina New Orleans, where we were being told by the media that people were resorting to cannibalism in the Superdome?

What is the policy of major news outlets in deciding whether to run a story? What kind of 'vetting' is going on within these organizations before they release major newsbreaks? In a situation like the mine explosion (as well as Katrina) where local officials may be very emotionally involved with the circumstances, does it call for additional source-checking before running a story?

And....does this mean that the media 'lied' and 'deliberately misled the country' about the status of the miners?

Will the heads of the Associated Press volunteer to resign in the face of this scandal?

I think that the MSM should be very careful the next time they criticize the internet for being 'less accurate'.