Sanity in the World?

Into all lives, a little Sanity must fall.

My Photo
Location: Michigan, United States

See post here: About Me

Friday, June 30, 2006

The Friday Round Up

Welcome to the Friday Roundup of what is currently being talked about and discussed around the Blogs.

Michelle Malking believes something is not right with "HADJI GIRL" MARINE: SILENCED?"
Excerpt of Michelle Malkins Post:

When contacted by Marine Corps Times, Belile confirmed that he had canceled the free studio time, but declined to specify whether he had changed his mind or if it had been changed for him.

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said an order that prevents Belile from performing and recording the song in his off hours “certainly raises a First Amendment question in my mind.”

“They could get him for disobedience, but there is still a question about whether the order is lawful,” Fidell said.

Atlas Shrugs is riveted by the new "Oil For Food's Bulging Bags of Smuggled Cash"
Excerpt of Atlas Shrugs post:

It was no wonder Saddam was confident no harm would come to him. He had the UN in his back pocket (the pocket with the wallet in it.) The following is in today's New York Sun. None of the dinosaur media goes near oil for food story -- the UN is their sacred mad cow no matter how decadent and bespolied.

“I guess we have to take care of B.B.”

A Korean businessman,Tongsun Park, hinted that he needed $10 million from Saddam Hussein so he could “take care” of Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, a court heard yesterday. Mr. Boutros-Ghali told Mr. Park he wanted to “neutralize” a top U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq and that he was relying on his “Iraqi friends” to aid his mid-1990s bid for reelection, according to testimony.

Outside the Beltway clues us in on Police insanity with a "Man Charged after Videotaping Police on His Own Property".
Excerpt from Outside the Beltway:

A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons. Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court. Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.


The Gannons felt police were harassing the family, Janet Gannon said. “There were six cops in my yard,” the first time police came, she said. “My husband was very upset. How many cops does it take to talk to a 15-year-old.”

Ray Robison informs us that the "DIA confirms found chem rounds are WMD"
Excerpt from Ray Robisons:

The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

Say Anything gives us some insight on "Nazi Roots Of Islamofascism" (with Pictures!)
Excerpt from Say Anything:

“Go out and murder the Jewish infidel in the name of the holy Koran . . . he who kils a Jew is assured of a place in the next world.”

Sounds like something Osama bin Laden would urge, doesn't it? Actually, this quote was uttered long before bin Laden was even born, by Amin al-Husseini, (1895-1974) Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The biography of Husseini reminds us that the term 'Islamofascism' is no mere neologism aimed at extreme Muslims in the wake of 9/11 - it is also a reminder of the Nazi roots of extreme Muslim anti-semitism that still rages today.

Husseini was one of the masterminds of the Holocaust. Husseini met with Hitler in 1941, and according to Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (later hung after Nuremburg for war crimes):

Stop the ACLU shows us the hypocricy of the ACLU in "ACLU Condemns House Resolution Approving SWIFT Program"
Excerpt from Stop the ACLU:

Here we go again. They are flipping through every American’s checkbook now. Even though the program is limited to following promising leads which are usually large international transactions, the ACLU has to throw out its scaremongering catch phrases. The IRS already thumbs trough all of our checkbooks anyway, unless the ACLU avoid that somehow. Why are democrats and far left organizations like the ACLU defending the leaking of classified information that puts America at greater danger? Maybe the ACLU should focus on cleaning their own house from prying eyes on their own member’s finances for fundraising purposes. What kind of independent review does that get?

Blue Star Chronicles with the "The Soccer Ball".
Excerpt from the Blue Star Chronicles:

This is what bugs me. This is a Pennsylvania company returning from Iraq - they are represented in Congress by someone like John Surrender MURTHA! Will he hear what they are saying? Will he support them? No. He’s just interested in becoming House Majority Leader - or is senile - or both.

Will the main stream media hear them? No, I doubt it. They are too busy looking for something - ANYTHING - they can hang around our President’s neck.

Here’s the reality as I understand it.

The people in the towns know full well who is on which side. They know who plants the IEDs, they know where the IEDs are. They are giving them shelter in their towns. So when the Americans go in there to get the bad guys, they have a real dilemma on their hands. They can not identify the enemy from the locals who are living in fear of the enemy.

The people in the towns aren’t sure if the Americans are going to stay so they are afraid to trust their own fates to the good will of the Americans. When they hear the demented ramblings of Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry and their little league of traitors, they are going to hedge their bets. So would I. They aren’t going to give up the terrorists until they are certain the Americans are going to see this through an not leave them to the very imaginative torture of their tormenters. We might leave them to be executed as was done during the Clinton administration.

You GO Girl!!
A good read / rant and I COMPLETELY understand her frustration.

The Cigar Intelligence Agency informas us what "The SCOTUS didn't do".
Excerpt from the Cigar Intelligenace Agency:

It does not:

• Satisfy the supposed demands of “world opinion:” the closing of the Guantanamo Bay camp and the immediate release of its detainees.

• Free Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the acknowledged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden.

• Exclude Hamdan from a court martial or, if Congress decides, trail by a military tribunal.

• Say that Hamdan or any others cannot be held “for the duration of active hostilities.”

• Require that he, or other detainees, be tried before a civilian court, as some anti-war activists had demanded.

• Prohibit the United States from detaining future enemy combatants.

Truth is, Hamdan remains ours, and the Bush administration and Congress still have plenty of ways to ladle out justice to him and other enemy combatants. Despite the hysteria of both sides, the war on terror continues as before.

The Adventures of Chester tell us where to "Hit Em Where It Hurts" (New York Times).
Excerpt from The Adventures of Chester:

It is sad and unfortunate that the New York Times has chosen to publish the classified details of a legal and effective government program meant to secure the Republic from attack. In fact, it is not just sad, it is enraging. In December, I thought that the outing of the NSA wiretapping techniques was in poor form, but there was a case to be made, and it was made by many, many commentators, that the program was operating in a gray area of the law.

But this latest bit of treason is truly outrageous. The program was legal; it was effective; it was not abused; it had independent auditors; and it was briefed to the members of Congress of both parties who Needed To Know.

I just spent a few fruitful moments on Yahoo Finance and discovered some basic information that may be of interest to many of you readers out there. On the major holdings page, we learn that a significant percentage of the New York Times' stock is held by institutions and mutual funds: 83%, quite a large chunk. Those institutions, especially the mutual funds, are in turn owned by none other than many of you Loyal Readers out there. You might want to find out if you own a little piece of the New York Times in your own 401K or IRA. Take a look at the largest mutual fund holders:

A very detailed and long post concerning the New York Times.
A very good read.

Blonde Sagacity shows the insanity of of PC with "Superman - Illegal Alien?".
Excerpt from Blonde Sagacity:

I have never been a big fan of Superman (Batman either for that matter) DC Comics are a bit hokey --Why bother with a geeky guy in tights or a grown man dressed as a bat when there are superheroes like Wolverine out there...?

I digress...

Anyway, it seems the screenwriters of the new Superman movie have decided he wasn't PC enough and changed his catch phrase "Truth, Justice and the American way" to... Ready for this...
"Truth, Justice...and all that stuff". Wow.

Here is an explanation from the writers, Dan Harris and Mike Dougherty:

I ran across this Article that will make you grin:

As the season of high grass and even higher pollen counts is upon us I thought this an opportune time to pass along a useful yard care tip: NEVER use a weed whacker in the nude.

You may wonder how I came by this insight....

And after all this and you need some cheering up, come watch a video with me.

The Extreme Diet Coke & Mentos Experiments:
What happens when you combine 200 liters of Diet Coke and over 500 Mentos mints? It's amazing and completely insane.

Watch the Video HERE.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

New York Times Paper of Treason?

This seems to be the reaction from most around the Blog-O-Sphere, meanwhile the media outlets seem to be circling the wagons around the New York Times.

Old Soldier has a break down on Security Classifications - The Long and Short of it. Explaining the classifications of Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. What it takes to get the required clearances to view such classifications are also explained.

Violations are clearly stated in:

Title 18, United States Code Section 798. Disclosure of classified

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Old Soldier seems to nail the concern most American's share:

Callous disclose of classified information is a betrayal to all the citizens of this nation, both liberal and conservative alike. Printing information pertinent to a classified program in an internationally circulated newspaper bears the stain of treason. In regard to last Friday's classified program revelation, without exception, these newspapers and reporters should be brought under the scrutiny of the Justice Department for possible violation of US Code. If found in violation; they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In my estimation, there are no mitigating circumstances that warrant the betrayal of this nation.

It is a great post, and definite read.

The outrage against the New York Times is growing and has not diminished any, so much so that Lawmakers now have sat up and began to take notice:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.


King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times _ the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press.

King's action was not endorsed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

"On the basis of the newspaper article, I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."

It is not suprising that Spectre seems to not want to endorse investigations and prosecution of those responsible for the leaks and news agencies that received Classified and Top Secret Information, and asked by the Government not to reveal Classified and Top Secret information to the public so it will not inform the terrorists of how America is protecting itself, the New York Times ignores the pleas of our Government and publishes the information anyways.

When the paper chose to publish the story, it quoted the executive editor, Bill Keller, as saying editors had listened closely to the government's arguments for withholding the information, but "remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Treasury officials obtained access to a vast database called Swift _ the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based database handles financial message traffic from thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries.

In my opinion, the New York Times and any other publications are helping terrorists evade detection in the US and abroad by divulging Classified and Top Secret information leaked to them from disgruntled or individuals with different ideals or plans for this country.

Do you really think the NYT de-classification of a Top Secret Program (Something only the President has the power to do); a program that is COMPLETELY LEGAL, and used to monitor money flow of terrorists, so our government can see where that money is coming from and who it is going you really think that HELPS America stay safer from terrorist attack or do you think it is one more program that will have to be scrapped that was helping ensure our safety because the New York Times and other publications have decided it was in the public (terrorists?) best interest to know?

Democrats and civil libertarians are questioning whether the program violated privacy rights.

Yes, I am not surprised that Democrats and civil libertarians (code word ACLU?) are questioning if it violated privacy rights. It has already been found to be completely LEGAL, but lets disclose the information anyways, because we feel it MIGHT have violated privacy rights...MIGHT HAVE. To completely put out in view of the terrorist the operation the US had in place in tracking them because it might, MIGHT, have violated privacy rights is ridiculous.

My opinion, whoever leaked the information is most likely a Democrat trying to undermine the Administration, but what he or she who is doing the leaking doesn't understand, (or maybe they do and the hatred of the current administration is so much they don't care how much they damage the United States in trying to disparage the current administration), is that if or when a Democrat does become President again, you have killed any ability they will have to monitor terrorists plans for attacking America or it's allies, and will have made it that much harder for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to try and keep America safe.

The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States, but it does not execute those transfers.

The service generally does not detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.


He said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.


Freedom of the Press does not give "Carte Blanche" to the Times or any other publication to disclose whatever information they feel like.

Stop the ACLU has the reaction of a variety of bloggers concerning the NYT at The Pirate Armada Vs. The New York Times.

A reader from Powerline makes a great catch on the hypocrisy of the New York Times:

Reader Douglas Rose has drawn our attention to this September 24, 2001 New York Times editorial ("Finances of Terror") (access limited to TimesSelect):

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies...

Great catch!

A good read and break down on the New York Times arrogance concerning this at Michelle Malkin: WHY THEY BLABBED: IT'S THE ARROGANCE

Michelle also posted Messages for the DOJ, multiple letters that have been sent from American Citizens.

Michelle Malkin has the run down on the Anti-Blabbermouth Photoshop Crusade HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

An example from the Anti-Blabbermouth Photoshop Crusade, and one of my favorites:

You know, here's the thing about military plans:
You don't disclose them.

Tony Snow, to the White House Press Gaggle, June 26, 2005

Others Blogging on this MAJOR concern:
Texas Rainmaker with "New York Times Traitors"

Leaning Straight Up with "NY Times post's troop reduction plans from classified briefing"

Expose the Left with "Yet Another Lib Who Defends The NYT, At Least He Went On O'Reilly"

Sister Toldjah with "Keller: not all of them urged us not to publish"

Tamy Bruce with "GOP Acts Against New York Times"

The Influence Peddler with "House Criticizes Times; MSM Ignores the Question"

Newsbusters with "Inside the Post, Kurtz Laments 'Piling On' the Secret-Spoiling N.Y. Times"

Patterico's Pontifications with "(See-Dubya) Bill Keller: Doofus."

The Q and O with "NYT: The editorial side speaks"

Sweetness and Light with "WaPo: National Security Up To Editors, Not Government"

BuzzMachine with "Tell all"

Dadmanly with "Security and Secrecy"

Don Surber with "Not every newspaper has lost its mind"

The Squiggler with "Bill Keller responds ... arrogancy meter burned out over this one"

Saturday, June 24, 2006

28,000 U.S. Navy Sailors Social Security Numbers Posted on Civilian Website

Sailors' Social Security Nos. on Web Site

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Navy has begun a criminal investigation after Social Security numbers and other personal data for 28,000 sailors and family members were found on a civilian Web site.

The Navy said Friday the information was in five documents and included people's names, birth dates and Social Security numbers. Navy spokesman Lt. Justin Cole would not identify the Web site or its owner, but said the information had been removed. He would not provide any details about how the information ended up on the site.

Cole said there was no indication so far that the information was used illegally, but individuals involved were being contacted and encouraged to monitor their bank accounts and credit cards.

Meanwhile, the General Accountability Office said it removed archival records from its Website this week containing some personal identifying information of fewer than 1,000 government workers. The data included some individual names and Social Security numbers.

The breach regarding the Navy comes amid a rash of government computer data thefts, including one at the Agriculture Department earlier this week in which a hacker may have obtained names, Social Security numbers and photos of 26,000 Washington-area employees and contractors.

As many as 26.5 million veterans and current military troops may have been affected by the theft of a laptop computer containing their Social Security numbers and birth dates. The computer was taken from the home of a Veterans Affairs Department employee in early May, and officials waited nearly three weeks before notifying veterans on May 22 of the theft.

As many as a half dozen federal agencies have been affected by computer data losses in recent months.

In a letter Friday to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, one member of Congress asked for details on the Navy incident, and questioned whether the Defense Department will make sure a free credit help is provided for those affected.

U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he had asked Rumsfeld two years ago about the implications of federal agencies outsourcing data collection and processing activities. While there is no indication that outsourcing was the problem in the Navy case, Markey said he wants to know what effect that would have on the security of information on military personnel.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is investigating the breach. The initial discovery was made by the Navy Cyber Defense Operations Command, which routinely monitors the Internet for such problems.

The Navy said individuals can place a 90-day fraud alert on their credit reports, and provided information on companies to contact. Cole said there has been no decision made yet on whether the Navy will pay for credit monitoring.

Information on how to watch for suspicious activity can be found at the Navy Personnel Command's Web site, .


Experian, one of the credit report providers, has on their website VA Assistance:

If you received a notice about the Department of Veteran's Affairs announcement that your personal identifying information may have been compromised, Experian offers special services that may help protect your personal identification information from being used fraudulently.
VA is working with law enforcement agencies to investigate a burglary in which computer disks were stolen that contained the personal identifying information of some veterans. While the VA stresses that they have no reason to anticipate misuse of this information, they have advised impacted veterans to take precautions, such as monitoring your accounts for suspicious activity.

You also may want to add a temporary fraud alert to your credit file to alert anyone who reviews your file that you have reason to suspect fraud. A fraud alert can make it more difficult for someone to get credit in your name because it tells creditors to follow certain procedures to protect you. It also may delay your ability to obtain credit. We will share your request with the other national credit reporting agencies, Equifax and Trans Union, so you will not need to contact each agency separately.

Add an alert and view a free copy of your personal credit report.

For added peace of mind, Experian can monitor your three national credit reports for any key/important changes. This way, you will know within 24 hours if there are any important changes to your credit reports. It's quick and easy to sign up! Simply go to the website to enroll and start enjoying the added peace of mind of credit monitoring.


This started with the following:

In May 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) learned that an employee, a data analyst, took home electronic data from VA that was stored in his home on a laptop computer and external hard drive. He was not authorized to take this data home. This behavior was in violation of VA policies.

The employee's home was burglarized and the computer equipment, along with various other items, was stolen. The electronic data stored on this computer included identifying information for millions of veterans. Authorities believe the computer equipment, rather than any data on it, was the target of the theft. It is possible the perpetrators remain unaware of the information that they possess or of how to make use of it. However, out of an abundance of caution, VA is taking all possible steps to protect and inform all veterans, servicemembers, and reservists potentially affected.

What action has been taken against this employee or his supervisor?

The employee is cooperating fully with the investigation. The employee was initially placed on administrative leave, and VA is implementing procedures necessary to dismiss the employee. Also, the official responsible for the organization in which this employee served has resigned his position because of the events.

What information was included?

The data lost is primarily limited to an individual's name, date of birth, and social security number. In some cases, spousal information may have been included. However, this information alone may be useful to identity thieves, and we recommend that all veterans, servicemembers, and reservists be extra vigilant in monitoring for signs of potential identity theft or misuse of this information. Importantly, the affected data did not include any of VA's electronic health records or any financial information.

How do I know if information about me was stolen?

At this point, we do not have information available to confirm the specific individuals whose personal information may have been included in this data loss. VA just recently identified through a data match with the Department of Defense (DoD) that information on approximately 2.2 million servicemembers and reservists was also included on the lost data file. The investigation is ongoing.

Letters are being released to the affected individuals beginning on June 3. Because of the number of affected individuals, the letters will be released over a period of about two weeks. Those who have been affected should expect to receive a letter by June 15. This timeframe may vary by a few days based on postal service schedules for mail delivery.

Were active-duty and National Guard/Reserve members included?

Working with the DoD, VA has determined that the data stolen on 26.5 million individuals included information on active-duty military personnel. Initially, it was thought that approximately 50,000 active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel might have been involved.

However, as the two agencies compared electronic files, VA and DoD learned that personal information on as many as 1.1 million military members on active duty, 430,000 members of the National Guard, and 645,000 members of the Reserves may have been included in the data theft.

VA receives records for every new accession and military enlistee because active-duty personnel and National Guard and Reservists are eligible to receive certain VA benefits, such as GI Bill educational assistance and the home loan guaranty benefit.

What should I do to protect myself? Do I have to close my bank account or cancel my credit cards?

At this point there is no evidence that any missing data has been used illegally. However, VA is asking all veterans to be extra vigilant and to carefully monitor bank statements, credit card statements, and any statements relating to recent financial transactions, and to immediately report any suspicious or unusual activity.

For tips on how to guard against misuse of personal information, visit the Federal Trade Commission website at

You do not have to close your bank account or cancel your credit cards. You should, however, take steps to protect yourself against identity theft.

One way to monitor your financial accounts is to review your credit report. By law you are entitled to one free credit report each year. Request a free credit report from one of the three major credit bureaus – Equifax, Experian, TransUnion – at or by calling 1-877-322-8228.

What do you mean by suspicious activity?

Suspicious activities could include the following:

* Inquiries from companies you haven't contacted or done business with
* Purchases or charges on your accounts you didn't make
* New accounts you didn't open or changes to existing accounts you didn't make
* Bills that don't arrive as expected
* Unexpected credit cards or account statements
* Denials of credit for no apparent reason
* Calls or letters about purchases you didn't make


What should I do if I detect a problem with any of my accounts?

The Federal Trade Commission recommends the following four steps if you detect suspicious activity:

Step 1 – Contact the fraud department of one of the three major credit bureaus:

* Equifax: 1-800-525-6285;; P.O. Box 740241, Atlanta, GA 30374-0241

* Experian: 1-888-EXPERIAN (397-3742);; P.O. Box 9532, Allen, Texas 75013

* TransUnion: 1-800-680-7289;; Fraud Victim Assistance Division, P.O. Box 6790, Fullerton, CA 92834-6790

Step 2 – Close any accounts that have been tampered with or opened fraudulently.

Step 3 – File a police report with your local police or the police in the community where the identity theft took place.

Step 4 – File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission by using the FTC's Identity Theft Hotline:

* By telephone: 1-877-438-4338

* Online at

* By mail at Identity Theft Clearinghouse, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20580.

President Signs Executive Order Protecting Private Property Rights

White House Release

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



June 23, 2006.


Friday, June 23, 2006

Geraldo on the O'Reilly Factor

Newsbusters has the lowdown on the interview with Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera.

It does suprise me that Geraldo seems to be in support, and very vocal support for the President and his course with Iraq. It was funny how he managed to "squeeze" Hillary's name in there though.

“The only way we can find an honorable exit from Iraq is to do what the commander in chief is now suggesting and what good people like Hillary Clinton are also suggesting is to stay the course. We have to stay the course.”

Newsbusters notes the rather strong words he has in criticism on John Kerry and the "Date for Troop Withdrawal" crowd:

Bill O’Reilly interviewed the outspoken Geraldo Rivera on “The O’Reilly Factor” Thursday evening concerning the current goings on in Iraq, and how the media are covering it. During their discussion, Geraldo stated his surprising support for President Bush, while offering a rather strong critique of Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) as well as for all those who want to establish a time certain for American troop withdrawal.

This just has to eat up the Liberal and the biased media when Geraldo comes out and flat out states that the President is RIGHT. How many must have choked on their Latte's when he stated the following:

“But I'm telling the American people right now that Bush is right. The commander in chief is right. Woe on to us if we think that we can forget about what's happened. That, I think, is lamentable.”

Oh, but Geraldo did not stop there, and this must have set the fires a burnin' on John Kerry and those that support his foolish resolution as Geraldo put something in perspective about John Kerry:

“I've known John Kerry for over 35 years. Unlike me, he is a combat veteran, so he gets some props. But in the last 35 years, I've seen a hell of a lot more combat than John Kerry. And for a smart man like that in a political ploy to set a date certain only aids and abets the enemy, and the Democrats are at their own self destructive behavior once again."

Ah, you would think support of the President and a slap at John Kerry would be enough, but Geraldo had some not so nice words to say on Editors and the media:

“What they have to say is essentially meaningless. I don't even know anyone who reads editorials anymore.”

“They are losing circulation on a daily basis, as you gleefully point out.”

Full transcript from Newsbusters.

O'REILLY: Joining us now with his take, the host of the syndicated program, "Geraldo at Large", Geraldo Rivera.

Now, I just want to remind viewers, you spent a lot of time in Iraq.


O'REILLY: You've been there, seen the country. You were in a combat situation and all that.

RIVERA: I went into Baghdad with the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Aerosol Combat Team. [sanity - I believe 'Aerosol' should be Air Assault]

O'REILLY: That's why I want to talk to you.

RIVERA: It's awful. (ph)

O'REILLY: Because now we're getting as we predicted and I hate to be an "I told you so" guy, but it is so political, the moral equivalency, all right, by these far left people saying it's not the terrorists responsible for the deaths of those two soldiers. It's the American government responsible. How do you react to that?

RIVERA: I don't think that I have to accept that premise to say what I'm about to say.

The only way we can find an honorable exit from Iraq is to do what the commander in chief is now suggesting and what good people like Hillary Clinton are also suggesting is to stay the course. We have to stay the course. To withdraw on a date certain.

I've known John Kerry for over 35 years. Unlike me, he is a combat veteran, so he gets some props. But in the last 35 years, I've seen a hell of a lot more combat than John Kerry. And for a smart man like that in a political ploy to set a date certain only aids and abets the enemy, and the Democrats are at their own self destructive behavior once again. Now, that's a separate issue from the editorial.

Let them attack you. You are bigger than them. You are tougher than them. What do you give a damn about what they have to say? What they have to say is essentially meaningless. I don't even know anyone who reads editorials anymore.

Because you read -- this is the thing you forget about. You want to read the op-ed page, you want to read a different diversity of opinion, you check it out there. But I'm telling the American people right now that Bush is right. The commander in chief is right. Woe on to us if we think that we can forget about what's happened. That, I think, is lamentable.

O'REILLY: I agree with you. Most people don't read the op-ed pages and they don't -- you know, this professor from Notre Dame, he's a left- wing nut. OK. All right. It's not that he attacks me that gets me angry. I use that to show the guy is untruthful; he's a liar.

But there is a reason President Bush's poll numbers have gone down, and most people have turned against the Iraq war. And that reason is the cabal in the press which every day emphasizes the negative and continues to make the moral equivalencies between the terrorists and the USA, saying we are no better than they are. That kind of a weight...

RIVERA: But an open society is, by its very nature, masochistic.

O'REILLY: But they're winning.

RIVERA: They're winning -- what are they winning?

O'REILLY: They're winning public opinion.

RIVERA: They are losing circulation on a daily basis, as you gleefully point out.

Video of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Geraldo Rivera.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

AOL Just Doesn't Want to Let You Go!

See what happens when trying to CANCEL your account with AOL - but they won't let you!

An incredible video from CNBC shows an AOL customer trying to cancel his account, but a phone rep won't let him do it. What customer Vincent Ferrari got when he tried to cancel his account was a lot of frustration.

It took him 15 minutes waiting on the phone just to reach a real, live person.

And, what happened next was recorded by Ferrari on audio and lasted about four minutes:


AOL REPRESENTATIVE: Hi this is John at AOL... how may I help you today?

VINCENT FERRARI: I wanted to cancel my account.

AOL: Sorry to hear that. Let's pull your account up here real quick. Can I have your name please?

VINCENT: Vincent Ferrari.


AOL: You've had this account for a long time.


AOL: Use this quite a bit. What was the cause of wanting to turn this off today?

VINCENT: I just don't use it anymore.

AOL: Do you have a high speed connection, like the DSL or cable?


AOL: How long have you had that...

VINCENT: Years...

AOL: ...the high speed?

VINCENT: ...years.

AOL: Well, actually I'm showing a lot of usage on this account.

VINCENT: Yeah, a long time, a long time ago, not recently...


AOL: Okay, I mean is there a problem with the software itself?

VINCENT: No. I just don't use it, I don't need it, I don't want it. I just don't need it anymore.

AOL: Okay. So when you use this... I mean, use the computer, I'm saying, is that for business or for... for school?

VINCENT: Dude, what difference does it make. I don't want the AOL account anymore. Can we please cancel it?


AOL: Last year was 545, last month was 545 hours of usage...

VINCENT: I don't know how to make this any clearer, so I'm just gonna say it one last time. Cancel the account.

AOL: Well explain to me what's, why...

VINCENT: I'm not explaining anything to you. Cancel the account.

AOL: Well, what's the matter man? We're just, I'm just trying to help here.

VINCENT: You're not helping me. You're helping me...

AOL: I am trying to help.

VINCENT: Helping... listen, I called to cancel the account. Helping me would be canceling the account. Please help me and cancel the account.

AOL: No, it wouldn't actually...

VINCENT: Cancel my account...

AOL: Turning off your account...

VINCENT: ...cancel the account...

AOL: ...would be the worst thing that...

VINCENT: ...cancel the account.


AOL: Okay, cause I'm just trying to figure out...

VINCENT: Cancel the account. I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. Cancel the account. When I say cancel the account, I don't mean help me figure out how to keep it, I mean cancel the account.

AOL: Well, I'm sorry, I don't know what anybody's done to you Vincent because all I'm...

VINCENT: Will you please cancel the account.


AOL: Alright, some day when you calmed down you're gonna realize that all I was trying to do was help you... and it was actually in your best interest to listen to me.

VINCENT: Wonderful, Okay.


"I've never ever experienced anything like that," Ferrari told CNBC.

He recounts how the AOL representative - as a last resort even asked if his dad was home.

"I think I could've put up with everything, but at the point when he asked to speak to my father, I came very close to losing it at that point," said the 30-year-old Ferrari.

Ferrari then posted the call online, and the response was tremendous.

AOL sent him an apology and said the customer service rep was no longer with the company.


Step-by-Step Slideshow can be seen HERE


Monday, June 19, 2006

Do the Dixie Chicks Hate America?

It really seems that way.

Michelle Malkin at Hot Air has the video report that "We aren't read to make nice either".

The Dixie Chicks, the name of their group suggesting that they are a Country group, cannot seem to sell to Country fans.

Instead of just "shutting up" and singing, in which fans and listeners could enjoy thier music, they seem to have a need to use their music and concerts as a place to make political points, putting down the President of the United States both in America and in other countries, putting down their fellow Country singers and even degrading Country fans themselves.

Maquire says she is not trying to say the country music audience is mostly rednecks. "But over the years, and especially, since country music's turned into this redneck theme, it's become kind of a negative,"


The negativity I hear and see in YOUR statements Dixie Chicks, where as with other Country singers, I hear uplifting music, Patriotism, belief in self and Country, music that charges you up, speeches and talks that inspire and charge up the crowds; not a hate-filled screed that rips apart others and what you believe in.

By the way, you didn't seem to mind when these "rednecks" were buying your music, just when they took offense to what you said and spoke out against you.

So she is done with those that speak out against her, and if we as Americans take the same attitude, can say the same as she, that we are done with you and you can leave.
(just equating this to how she is acting and talking):

Maines says she’s finished with the genre and is none too pleased with the fans, basically labeling them as redneck hicks. She tells Entertainment Weekly, “the stereotype is true.”

“So I’m pretty much done. They’ve shown their true colors. I like lots of country music, but as far as the industry and everything that happened… I couldn’t want to be farther away from that,” Maines told EW.


“The entire country is controlled by money. And I think that’s what people feel, they don’t — their voice isn’t heard. They don’t have a say. It’s corporate America. My friend made up the word corpocracy. I love that word.”

It is a Captilistic society, do expect people and businesses NOT to make money?
I do not see you giving your CD Music away for FREE and not charging for your concerts, so your more than a bit hypocritical in stating this.

Was it any wonder when they do this that there will not be a backlash?

Maines: Oh, my God, yes. We never in a million years knew people were listening to what we said. Like Emily said, we never use the stage as a place to preach our political beliefs or spiritual beliefs. And we still won't. And that's not what I was doing that night either. It seemed odd to not mention anything about what was going on, granted I mentioned it in the wrong way."
-- Syndicated radio interview with Bob Kingsley, 4/24/03

You don't use your music and the stage to preach you political beliefs?
You sure about that?

and now the Dixie Chicks question your Patriotism, and how you display it. They don't seem to know what it means to believe in something, including pride in your own country.

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," [Natalie] Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Why, through GRITTED TEETH, is she so angry about people who show their Patriotism, their Love of their Country, their Pride in their Country? Why does Patriotism make her so angry?

The more I hear Maines speak, the more she sounds like a petulant child.

Natalie just doesn't get it.
Country fans are usually the MOST patriotic, not saying that those that don't listen to Country aren't, but for the most part, the majority of Country music fans and Country music stars show their Patriotism, their Pride in their Country in their music.

It's a belief in something, a firm belief and Patriotism is taking Pride in your Country.
It is not just a place to "Live".

Karl over at Leaning Straight Up has an excellent post on, What is so bad about Patriotism?

It would be wishful thinking, but perhaps Maines and the rest of the Dixie Chick group that seem to follow Maines lead, should head over and read what Karl has to say about Patriotism, since they don't seem to understand.

Jasyn at Obviously Right points out an interesting observation:

Patriotism is the love of your country. Like any other love, it's based on gratitude, appreciation, and admiration.

Liberals don't love America, because they don't admire America, appreciate America, or feel any gratitude for America. They're not patriots.

Instead of admiring America, they attack it and tear it down. They magnify our faults and minimize our strengths. They lecture constantly about the evils America has done, but ignore the good America has done or is doing.

In their minds, America does no good, only evil. This is false, and so they do not- can not- understand America, and without understanding they can't appreciate America.

Without appreciation, they feel no gratitude. They take for granted all of the vast blessings and benefits they enjoy because of their citizenship. Their liberty, their prosperity, the fruits of the labors of previous generations, all of this means nothing to them.

Americans should love America. This country is great and she is good, and her people are among the best in the world. Few other nations are as generous and forgiving, few other nations are as selfless.

America is powerful, but we do not seek conquest or empire. Instead, we employ our power to defend others, though they spit on us. We use our power to spread freedom and liberty, and in this are unique among the great powers of history. To know America is to love America, and those who do not know cannot love.

Without love, one is not a patriot. For these Leftist un-patriots, the love patriots hold for America is incomprehensible, they do not understand how anyone can love this country. So they deride the love of America, and defame the patriots who love her.

And without love, they become a sad band of misanthropes, constantly on the verge of a bitter screed about the evils America does, never appreciating what America does for them and for others, and never understanding the grace and goodness of this great land. Without patriotism, they are driven to attack her, which is why patriotism is so significant.

Love is selfless, and the ability to sacrifice ones self for the good of this good land is of paramount importance. It's what keeps America safe, especially in times of war, and ensures that the blessings we enjoy are handed down to those who come after.

Excellently put Jasyn. Thank you.

Magnify the faults and ignoring or downplaying the strengths, benefits and good nature of America seems to be the common for Liberals and the Media - because they just don't seem to understand what Patriotism is. What they do is the OPPOSITE of Patriotism.

From Gene Autry touring the Pacific in the 1940s to Toby Keith touring Iraq and Afghanistan in the new millennia, America's country music stars have long been staunch supporters of America's men and women in uniform. Country fiddle playin', guitar pickin' singers, songwriters have traveled the world to bring a touch of home to U.S. service members defending freedom.

Country Music Stars and the Troops
You won't see the Dixie Chicks in the above list.

"It’s really something to see artists come and support us. The morale boost that it gives is just like getting good letters from home."

Master Gunnery Sgt. Tom Rose, Marine Corps Forces Command, Norfolk, Va.

But now the Dixie Chicks have to go to another Country to whine and complain:

"The reaction was as if Natalie had said 'Death to the President' or something," says violinist and vocalist Maguire.

"It was the bullying and the scare factor," shudders banjo and guitar player Robison. "It was like the McCarthy days, and it was almost like the country was unrecognisable."

The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers.


"I think for longevity's sake, our music had to mature and we had to mature as people," says Maguire.


First of all, your not even old enough to know anything about the McCarthy days, so how can you sit there with a straight face and equate Americans who dislike what you say and found it contemptable so chose not to support you finacially by not buying your music to McCarthism?

Perhaps your music has matured, but still waiting on you to mature.

I guess you don't agree with Freedom of Choice either?

The Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Speech for those who do not agree with you to show you buy not buying your products and/or speaking out against what they find offensive in your music and statements.

While you are free to bash and degrade your fellow Country Singers, Country fans, Texas and America...we also have the same Freedom to not buy the screed your selling, to turn our backs on you, to not go to your concerts and to turn away from you.

Freedom works both ways.

Others blogging this:
Sister Toldjah - "The Dixie Chicks: What’s the big deal about patriotism?"

Rhymes with Right - "Just Call Them The Dixie Victims"

A Lady's Ruminations - "What did they expect?"

California Conservative - "The Dixie Chick Don’t Get Patriotism"

Bryan at Hot Air - "Dixie Chicks: No need for patriotism"

Flopping Aces - "Dixie Chicks Care Little For Patriotism"

The Squiggler - "Dixie Chicks ... what did she say?"

Amy Proctor - "The Chixie Dicks On Patriotism"

The Bullwinkle Blog - "The Hate Behind The Dixie Chicks"

Reality and Sanity - "Clueless Chicks"

Tammy Bruce - "Dixie Chick Confused by Patriotism"

Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler - "The Ditzy Twits, Ditzier Than Ever"

Cold Fury - "Just don’t question their patriotism"

The Coalition of the Swilling - "Am I Allowed To Question Her Patriotism Now?"

Friday, June 16, 2006

Friday Funnies and Open Trackback

Is it just me, or does the cover seem to say OLBERMANN is "the Worst Person in the World" (him standing next to that statement) and then down at the bottom he has multiple individuals shown and right above them says, "and 119 more strong contenders"?

Sure seems like it says Olbermann is the Worst Person in the World - was it intentional?

And this is just priceless.......

From Drudge Report:

Fri Jun 16 2006 09:19:30 ET

CBSNEWS parent company VIACOM has began placing ads slamming its very own Katie Couric!

The company's DAILY SHOW rips EVENING-NEWS-to-be Couric, alleging "fake news" is on the way for viewers this fall when the former TODAY queen takes the anchor chair.

"It's all in good humor," said a CBS executive from New York.

"Everyone knows Ms. Couric is an outstanding journalist."


Others Blogging this:
Michelle Malkin with "WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD"

Thursday, June 15, 2006

The Media and Terrorists Go Hand-In-Hand

Greg Sheffield at Newsbusters show that Media and Terrorism go hand-in-hand:

Study: Media Coverage Increases Terrorism

A new study says that the more the media cover terror attacks, the more terror attacks occur. Both the media and terrorists benefit from terror attacks, because the terrorists get free publicity while the media get higher ratings and sell more newspapers.

Reports the Washington Post:

It's a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a "common-interest game," say Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University.

"Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."


I seem to remember the President's speech about not supporting terrorists, and while he was mainly speaking about other countries, is it to far of a stretch to include the Media in this?

"And some governments, while pledging to uphold the principles of the U.N., have cast their lot with the terrorists. They support them and harbor them, and they will find that their welcomed guests are parasites that will weaken them and eventually consume them.

"For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid, and it will be paid. The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice. The Taliban are now learning this lesson. That regime and the terrorists who support it are now virtually indistinguishable.
- President Bush's speech to United Nations (11/10/2001)

More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.

It has already been proven that the terrorists will even POSE for pictures for the media, and to get the story the media will embed itself with the enemy.

I wonder, are the reporters, the media there when the enemy shoots and kills an American, or kills an innocent Iraqi man, woman or child just to get at an American Soldier?

If so, I say they are complicent in the deaths if they stand by and watch.

The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

The more the media gives the spotlight to the terrorists the more the terrorist will kill to get in the spotlight.

Hand-in-hand, the media and the terrorists supporting each others causes.

Attacking, Assaulting, Robbing Is not the Answer

4 Charged in N.Y. Mexican Immigrant Attack

Two Mexican immigrants fishing off a Long Island jetty were attacked by a group of white teenagers who beat them and stole their money while using racial and ethnic slurs, police said.

The four young men have been charged with robbery and assault as hate crimes in connection with the Monday night attack. They were arraigned Wednesday in a Suffolk County court.

Authorities identified the defendants as Nicholas Provenzano, 19; Daniel Sturgis, 19, and Jesse Lee Ward, 18, all of Rocky Point. A 16- year-old also was charged.

Attorney James D'Angelo, who represented Ward and Foley in court, said all four had entered not guilty pleas.

"They are denying involvement in this," D'Angelo said.

Police said the two Mexican men, who were not identified, were not seriously injured.

Long Island has been the site of other anti-immigrant incidents. In two Mexican men were beaten by two locals in Farmingville who promised them work. On July 4, 2003, a Mexican family barely escaped with their lives after teens set their Farmingville house ablaze by shooting fireworks through a window.


Many seem to think that the Illegal Illmigration issue is mainly felt in the southern states, but proof that this thinking is completely incorrect is right here.

This is not some random act, this is becoming a pattern as this "debate" continues.

The more our government stalls with this issue the worse this will get. I can see this escalating more, from childish fireworks and assualt and roberry to escalate into beatings and possibly even killings.

This is NOT how we are to do things in America.

And I will fully support the maximum sentence for those that take their frustrations and anger out on others, whether they are here legally or illegally, they do not deserve to be treated like that. Unfortunately the article does not state whether they are legal or illegal immigrant, but for the reason of the Law, that should not matter when it comes to Assualt, Robbery, Arson, ect.

You feel they have broken the Law, report them, call the police - but you do not take the Law into your own hands, and I will fully support prosecution to the full extent of the Law for those that do.

This is being labeled as a Hate Crime, and I am not completely certain that it isn't a Hate Crime. One group, one nationality is being targeted and I would say that constitutes a Hate Crime personally.

Definitions of Hate Crime on the Web:

Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.
Otterbein College: Uniform Crime Reporting Definitions

An offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or culture, etc.
Alaska Juvenile Justice Definition

A hate crime (bias crime), loosely defined, is a crime committed because of the perpetrator's prejudices. This is a controversial political issue within the US. The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals. ...
Wikipedia Definition

There is no excuse for such behaviour.

Enforcing Our Immigration Laws Leads to....

Arrests and Deportation:

"Police! Policia! Police!" yelled Daniel Monico, a deportation officer, holding his badge to a window where someone had pulled back the curtain. "Open the door!"

Moments later, agents led a dazed-looking Jose Ferreira Da Silva, 35, out in handcuffs. The Brazilian had been arrested in 2002 and deported, but had slipped back into the country. He now faces up to 20 years in prison.

In a blitz that began May 26, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested nearly 2,100 illegal immigrants across the country. Officials said the raids are aimed at child molesters, gang members and other violent criminals, as well as people like Da Silva who sneaked back into the country after a judge threw them out.

The crackdown is called Operation Return to Sender.

"This sends a message," said Monico, standing outside the gray Victorian apartment where Da Silva had been hiding. "When we deport you, we're serious."


The operation has caught more than 140 immigrants with convictions for sexual offenses against children; 367 known gang members, including street soldiers in the deadly Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13; and about 640 people who had already been deported once, immigration officials said. The numbers include more than 720 arrests in California alone.

More than 800 people arrested already have been deported.


The challenge, agents said, is staggering.

There are more than 500,000 "fugitive aliens" who have been deported by judges and either slipped back into the country or never left. There is often a disconnect between local and state prisons and the federal government that allows illegal immigrants to serve time and be released without being transferred to federal officials for deportation.


Another man caught in the recent blitz was a Salvadoran gang member who was convicted in a stabbing that left a 13-year-old boy paralyzed. Agents caught him working at Budget Rental Car at Boston's Logan Airport.

"The problems with immigration aren't going to be solved overnight," Raimondi said as the team sped toward another raid. "You start chipping away at it ... The more teams we get up and running, the more dangerous people we are going to get off the streets."

Viewed first at Say Anything.

I agree with Rob at Say Anything when he questions why this hasn't been done for the last decade.

We have turned a blind eye to Illegal Immigration till we are now entrenched in the mess we are in now.

We had a brief effort before, where it turned into Amnesty for Illegals, which turned out to be a disastor, and now we are back to that same point again.

"We cannot deport 12 Million people" is the phrase people use to GIVE UP. It is throwing up your hands in resignation and stating "We cannot deport 12 million people", so why try?

Even if they are right, and we cannot deport 12 million illegal aliens, I say we give it our best shot. If you don't try, you never know if you will succeed.

Untie the hands of law enforcement, allow local enforcement to coordinate and help with illegal aliens entering this country, allow them to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens, gang members, ect.

Get rid of "Sanctuary' cities, this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Sanctuary normally is a religous term, normally I believe Catholic, seeking Sanctuary in the Church. So certain cities have deemed themselves churches to offer Sanctuary to Illegal Aliens? To this I say, Federal Involvement needs to crack down on the cities themselves for harboring and supporting criminals.

And before you say Illegal Aliens are not criminals, when they bypass our Immigration Laws, breaking the Law by sneaking into this Country, they are CRIMINALS.

Not to mention the Fake IDs they get, False information they provide for documents, Theft of Identities and Social Security Numbers to get Documents, and able to work. Illegal Aliens break more than just one law when they come into this country illegally, and that doesn't even scratch the surface of the Gangs that have come across also.

I say we continue to support the Border patrol, and agencies that deal with Illegals, but get MORE people involved, get more people on the job.

But especially, we need to get our BORDERS under control. Our border is a joke, and it's time we start taking this seriously and keep the flame of indignation to the feet of our representatives, so they know how we feel and what we want.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Iraqi Girl with American Teddy Bear, Saves American Convoy

It is stories like this that help show that everyone over in Iraq does not hate our troops, as much as the media likes to portrait that.

Unfortunately, there is few stories like this, not because they do not exists, but because the MSM willingly seeks to remove anything positive from their stories, always trying to show what is happening in Iraq and our troops in the worst possible light, and something as touching as this story just does not fit in with the MSM's agenda driven coverage.

It is only because of our US soldier that bring back or send out reports and stories like this, that we even hear some of the good that happens that they are doing and that is a result of their actions.

Just wanted to write to you and tell you another story about an experience we had over here.

As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don't have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.

On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.

As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.

Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.

It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?

If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.

Tammy Bruce

Hat Tip: Sister Toldjah and fellow commenter on Sister Toldjah's, Mwalimu Daudi.

Thank you both for letting others know of the story.
America and the World needs to see the Good also, not just the Bad.

It is stories like this that we never see in the MSM.

Where is the coverage of this?
Where are the morning shows talking about this?

But don't forget, the MSM support our troops......

See how they support them by looking at the stories, do you see ANY positive stories of things that happen in Iraq? Yeah, neither did I.

We managed to kill the number one terrorist in Iraq recently, but the media has spun that into more negativeness.

An excellent explanation of the MSM and thier view here with:
"The good news from Iraq is not fit to print".

The MSM - Helping keep the terrorists in business.....

Help bring the Good for all to see, not just the Bad:

Good News from Iraq - April 2006

Good News from Iraq - May 2006

Positive Developments in Iraq

Letter from an American Soldier in Iraq

Literature of Freedom : Good News In Iraq - Excellent Read!

Other forgotten stories:
Americans donate tons of school supplies, clothes, toys

Spirit of America

Please help out:
Operation Gratitude
(You really support the troops, do more than put a bumper sticker on your car)

Any Soldier - Freedom isn't Free, Just ask any Soldier

Books for Soldiers

Adopt a Platoon
Moms Across America Adopt Soldiers Deployed Overseas

Operation Military Pride

America Supports You - Our Military Men & Women

How to Support the Troops
An older post, but has a ton of links for support.

Others Blogging about this:
Tammy Bruce with "An Iraqi Girl and Her Teddy Bear Save American Troops"

Sister Toldjah with "Iraqi girl saves American troops"

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Lawmaker's Excess in "Gifts"

Lawmakers took millions in free trips: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Members of the U.S. Congress and their aides took free trips worth nearly $50 million paid for by corporations, trade associations and other private groups between January 2000 and June 2005, according to a study released on Monday.

Some of the 23,000 trips featured $500-a-night hotel rooms, $25,000 corporate jet rides and visits to popular spots such as Paris, Hawaii and Colorado ski resorts, said the study, by the Center for Public Integrity, American Public Media and Northwestern University's Medill News Service.

"In many instances, trip sponsors appeared to be buying access to elected officials or their advisors," the study said.

While some excursions were legitimate fact-finding missions, others appeared to have been little more than "pricey vacations" wrapped around speeches or seminars in which the lawmaker was joined by family members, the study said.

The data emerged from a nine-month-long review of congressional travel disclosure forms and coincided with ongoing federal investigations of political corruption and efforts to clean up how Congress does business.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud charges in January and admitted he showered golf trips, sports tickets and other gifts on lawmakers in return for actions that would help his clients.

In response, the Senate and House of Representatives have voted to toughen ethics guidelines and require greater disclosure. But critics have charged more needs to be done.

Under a bill passed by the House, members would need prior approval from the House ethics committee before flying on corporate jets or accepting privately funded trips.

Lawmakers and their aides can take trips financed by outside groups to help them learn about issues or to deliver speeches, such as commencement addresses. Lobbyists may not pay for congressional trips but can help to arrange them.

Congressional trip sponsors, the study said, included Microsoft, Time Warner and The Walt Disney Co., along with the Association of American Railroads.

Tom White, an association spokesman, was quoted in the study as saying that such getaways "provide an opportunity for us to discuss our issues with members in an atmosphere where you are not time-constrained.

"If you try to talk to a member for any great length of time ... in Washington, they are simply too busy," White said.

Former House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay and his staffers accepted about a half million dollars in trips during the period under review -- more than any other congressional office, the study said.

DeLay resigned as the number two House Republican in the House and will leave Congress this week,, after he was indicted of violating campaign finance laws in his home state of Texas.


Delay certainly is not a good role model for Republican Leadership, or in showing an HONEST politician, BUT Delay is far from the only one that has taken advatage of their station to make life real easy for themselves.

It is not like Congressional and Senator leaders are poor, by far they are not, many are millionaires, or in the high end class and make approximately $130,000 to $140,000 a Year. All the 'perks' and 'gifts' are all extra, or the icing on the cake.

Lobbyists should not have special privledges, gifts and perks are ways to buy Congressmen's and Senator's time, something which normal every day people like you and I are not able to do.

When our lawmakers accept these gifts, many feel it is bribery, and in some case it is, a way to influence a lawmaker, soften him or her up to your way of thinking. It may be something simple or innocent, but the view of the public may not realize this, and so you should pay your own way Senators and Congressmen.

Stop accepting what the public feels like are bribes that are being used to soften you up, to influence your decision, or perhaps not go as hard on a company because of the influence they treated you to with 'gifts'.

CARSON CITY -- Nearly six of every 10 Nevadans would support a law to prevent legislators from accepting gifts, a Review-Journal poll has found.

The survey of 625 Nevadans found 58 percent favor banning legislators from accepting gifts, while 35 percent oppose the idea and 7 percent are undecided.

In the wake of a scandal in which 11 Southern Nevada legislators accepted tickets valued at more than $300 to Rolling Stones and Luis Miguel concerts, several proposals are being prepared to block or limit gifts to lawmakers and other public officials.

Craig Walton, president of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics, said gifts are nothing more than a "back-handed bribe."

"Is it bad morally to just say no?" he asked. "Lobbyists put themselves in a loving, schmoozing relationship with legislators with gifts. Joe Nevada and Jane Nevada don't give gifts and don't get the same access to legislators."

Link are nothing more than a "back-handed bribe."


We normal every day citizens do not have access to our lawmakers like those with money to stuff into our lawmakers coffers in the form of donations, giving them front row boxing tickets, box seats at special sporting events, limosine travel, "speaking fees", free golf trips, ect all for free because they are "gifts".

Christmas must come every day for our lawmakers.....

Even Colorado thinks Politicans are getting to many "perks" and "Gifts".

The measure contains several exceptions to the $50 limit. Sports and cultural tickets would be limited to $100 and lunches with lobbyists would not be covered.

It also would bar lawmakers from getting paid to support or oppose a ballot initiative and keep them from accepting speaking fees.

"It's clear from looking at other states with strong ethics codes that Colorado's law is lacking in critical areas," he said. "I think this bill would put us further down the path of expecting the best in ethics from legislators and other high-ranking appointees."


We expect our lawmakers to be ethical and to set themselves to a higher set of standards, because they hold a higher office, "With great power comes great responsibility", but unfortunately another old phrase "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is not just a phrase it seems when it comes to our lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat.

What happens when lawmakers don't follow the law? CBS 42 Investigates found at least 70 state lawmakers didn't report gifts they've received.


It's perfectly legal for lawmakers to give each other gifts, but they are required to disclose any gift worth more than $250 on their personal financial statement filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Problem is many don't.

CBS 42 Investigates analyzed the personal financial statements for the past three years for every committee chairman in both the Texas House and Senate. Out of more than 70 lawmakers, only two disclosed end of session gifts.

State Representative Elvira Reyna was given a $407 broach from Neiman Marcus. Kino Flores was given an $825 shotgun from McBride’s gun store. Ruben Hope's gun from McBride’s cost $1,700. None of them disclosed the gifts on their financial statements.

What about a $2,700 watch given to Lucio from a colleague in the Senate?

"The watch I did receive, but I didn't even question how much that cost. I know Senator Harris gave it to me from his heart, it's engraved,” Lucio said. “It was for when I was governor for a day. It's the most expensive thing I’ve got."


The ethics commission says the issue is clear. It's guidelines say "you must report all gifts worth more than $250, unless it's a gift from a relative, a political contribution or a gift from a lobbyist.”

But two of the top lawmakers say they aren't required to report gifts-- like the $1,100 hat senators gave to Lt. Governor David Dewhurst last session or the handmade saddle he was given the session before.

House Speaker Tom Craddick's spokesman said he isn't required to report the $2,000 piece of art from Cleggett Rey Art Gallery given at the end of the last session by some of the members of the Texas House.

They said because multiple people gave the gifts--and no single person spent more than $250 -- they aren't required to report the gifts.


I understand birthdays, Anniversaries, Weddings, but it seems like there is an awful lot of gift-giving between lawmakers also, much of which does not get reported or ever heard much about in the public forums.

When lawmakers give each other extravagent gifts, what is the real reasoning behind it?

Could it be that they are trying to influence another lawmaker to their side for a vote?

I do not see many of our lawmakers as the benisons of charity with all these gifts they give to each others. I see it as an alternative way of "doing business" in Washington.

Types of Gifts:

El Paso County Lawmakers -
* $75 for a Denver Nuggets basketball ticket from a Qwest lobbyist - Larry Liston (R-House District 16)
* A single contribution for a trip to Israel, courtesy of the Allied Jewish Federation of Colorado - Andy McElhany (Senate minority leader, R-District 12)

* Includes $1,116 worth of Denver Broncos club seats, courtesy of Colorado Concern, a group consisting of some of the state's most powerful business leaders - Ed Jones (R-Senate District 11)

* Includes $168.86 worth of golf, courtesy of Xcel Energy from Robert Roy Palmer, an Xcel lobbyist - Bill Cadman (R-House District 15)

* Includes $100 worth of golf at The Broadmoor, from the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, and $150 in golf at Red Sky Golf Club in Vail Valley, from the Colorado Association of Home Builders - Keith King (R-House District 21)

* Opening-day tickets to Colorado Rockies baseball from Qwest - Ron May (R-Senate District 10)

Former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Rancho Santa Fe:

Admitted taking $2.4 million in bribes from two defense contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. The bribes came in exchange for Cunningham using his influence to arrange lucrative contracts for high-tech equipment for intelligence gathering and analysis.

He collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress.

Cunningham accepted money and gifts including a Rolls-Royce and $40,000 Persian rugs from defense contractors and others in exchange for steering government contracts their way and other favors.

The case against Cunningham began when authorities started investigating his sale of his Del Mar house to defense contractor Mitchell Wade for $1,675,000, a price inflated by $700,000.

Wade admitted giving Cunningham more than $1 million in gifts, including a yacht, cash, cars, antiques and meals. He pleaded guilty last month to conspiring with Cunningham, among four corruption charges that carry a maximum prison term of 20 years.


I am glad Cunningham is gone, he was a stain that painted more than just the Republican party, but also every lawmaker, Republican and Democrat. I say everyone because it gives a negative impression of our lawmakers as doing the same.

We as American Citizens see this, and think this is how ALL of our lawmakers are, how they behave, that they are corrupt, and so it stains even honest lawmakers unfortunately.

Former Rep. Michael Myers, D-Pa. & Former Sen. Harrison Williams, D-N.J.:

Rep. Michael Myers (D-Pa.) was expelled from the House and served about 20 months in prison as a result of the Abscam bribery sting investigation, in which FBI agents posed as Arab businessmen. Sen. Harrison Williams (D-N.J.) was convicted and resigned as the Senate considered an expulsion motion.

Former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill:

Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), a former Ways and Means chairman, resigned after being indicted for fraud, witness tampering and embezzlement. He lost reelection and later served 15 months in prison. He was pardoned by President Clinton in 2000.

Former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio:

Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio) was expelled from the House after being convicted of bribery, obstruction of justice, racketeering and tax evasion. He was sentenced to eight years.

Former Rep. Mario Biaggi, D-N.Y:

Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) was convicted of accepting illegal gratuities, among other charges, triggering a House ethics investigation. In the meantime, he was convicted in a separate case of racketeering, conspiracy, extortion and bribery involving a defense contractor. He resigned the next day and was sentenced to eight years in prison.


Robert Guy Torricelli (The Torch), D-NJ:

"He likes material things and the finer things in life," said a former aide of Torricelli. "It's very hard to live that lifestyle if you don't have the money."

* 10 pricey Italian suits

* $8,100 Rolex

* Tiffany cuff links

* $1,500 Persian rug

* A big-screen TV

Link (Funny how the article NEVER mentions he is a DEMOCRAT though - I had to look him up to see what party affiliation he was.)

Bill and Hillary Clinton:

The Washington Post's report that furnishings worth $28,000 that the Clintons are keeping were in fact given to the National Park Service in 1993 to be part of the White House collection. That makes the Clintons look like common thieves. On Monday night, the Clintons blamed their staff, claiming that certain gifts were "improperly catalogued," and promised to give them back.

When the Clintons left Washington, they took with them gifts from two furniture makers who claim they actually had given furnishings to help redecorate the White House—an endeavor that cost $396,000. Among other gifts the Clintons left town with are a kitchen table and four chairs ($3650), a sofa ($2843), lamps ($1170), and a needlepoint rug ($1000). All of these gifts were slated for the redecoration project.

Despite the Clintons' promise to pay for half of the controversial gifts they removed from the White House and the ex-president's assertion that he would use funds from his library project to pay for half of the $650,000 yearly lease for an office on Manhattan's West Side, the fallout from their departure continues to rain down on the capital.

The Washington Post revealed that Clinton had pulled a trick to keep his friend Ronald I. Dozoretz, the health-care magnate, on as a member of the Kennedy Center board. First, Dozoretz, whose term had one year to run, quit the board, and then he was reappointed for a six-year stint by Clinton—a maneuver that raised eyebrows even in Washington's world of small-time socialites. Dozoretz and his wife, Beth, are big Clinton supporters. Last weekend the Clintons announced they would repay $7000—the value of a dining table, server, and golf club, which the Dozoretzes had given them. The Dozoretzes gave about $13,000 to Hillary's Senate campaign, and ponied up $10,000 for the Clinton Legal Defense Fund and $30,000 to Democratic candidates and committees. Beth Dozoretz served as finance chair of the DNC for nine months. Clinton is the godfather of the couple's daughter, and the Dozoretzes have been the Clintons' hosts on Martha's Vineyard.


* Rep. Richard Decker, R-Colorado Springs received a $1,000 check from tobacco giant Philip Morris.

* Rep. Richard Decker, R-Colorado Springs accepted tickets from Philip Morris to Love's Labour's Lost at the Denver Center for Performing Arts.

Interviewed again this week, Decker defended the practice of letting lobbyists write bills. "There's no conflict if you're in agreement with what the bill does," he said.


Gregg Rippy, R-Glenwood Springs:

In 2003, Gregg Rippy, then a Republican state representative from Glenwood Springs, introduced a bill that dramatically altered the rights of homeowners seeking to sue homebuilders for major building flaws. Opposed by homeowners' associations, consumer advocates and the trial lawyers that represent them, the bill — which passed — capped monetary awards for defects, such as a home slipping from its foundation, at $250,000.

Running up to his re-election campaign in 2002, just prior to his meeting with lobbyists, Rippy received more than $15,000 in campaign contributions from homebuilders, realtors, mortgage companies, insurers, contractors and other such interests.

Freda Poundstone, a former Republican mayor of Greenwood Village, was among those who fought Rippy. She launched a failed ballot initiative in 2004 to undo the law. She says consumers were simply outgunned by industry interests and Rippy's campaign backers.

"I learned the Legislature doesn't represent the people," says Poundstone, who now lives in Castle Rock. "Big money talks. The people behind this bill had money and hired the lobbyists. We were trying to protect the homeowners, but they forced it through. It is a loss for consumers."

The above shows how gifts, campaign contributions and perks can influence a lawmaker and his decision. Whether he would have introduced the bill without the campaign donation from those that benefited from his bill remains to be seen, but given the coincidence of it, it looks extremely fishy, and does look like he was influenced or "bribed" with monies from a lobbyists to put together a bill that benefitted those lobbying.

Which gives the appearance of corruption of our lawmakers.

Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based group that closely monitors lobbying and campaign donations, says politicians are in dangerous waters when they work closely with those who give them gifts and campaign contributions.

"The danger is, they do the lobbyists' bidding," he says. "[Lobbyists' participating in writing bills] is a phenomenon that makes the average person's jaw drop. There are some good reasons for it, and there are some good reasons for it to stop."

This is something I did not know till I read up on it, that Lobbyists will help devise a Bill with the lawmakers to be voted on. Those lobbyists, with a special interest in getting what THEY want, are helping put Bills forth with our lawmakers.

It just doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you?

There just seems to be an air of entitlement to our lawmakers, that they feel they are entitled to free lunches, free dinners, free tickets to sporting events, free days of golf, free travel, ect.

House Passes Lobbying Reform Bill: Enforcement Not Addressed

WASHINGTON, May 4, 2006 — The U.S. House of Representatives last night narrowly passed new ethics legislation aimed at increasing lobbying disclosures. The vote was 217-213 on the measure, which now must be reconciled with an earlier Senate bill that contains stringent provisions.

The House bill would require lobbyists to file reports quarterly instead of semiannually, list donations made to federal candidates and political action committees, and report public gifts given to lawmakers or congressional aides.

However, critics noted that the bill does not address the need for greater oversight and administration of the rules.

Research and analysis conducted by the Center for Public Integrity shows that from 1998 to 2004, lobbying disclosure rules have gone largely unenforced:

* Nearly 14,000 lobbying documents that should have been filed periodically with the Senate Office of Public Records are missing.

* Almost one in five of all companies registered to lobby are missing required disclosure forms.

* Almost 20 percent of all forms are filed late.

* Nearly 300 individuals and entities that filed some disclosure forms lobbied without registering.

In addition, the findings of a forthcoming Center study of privately sponsored congressional travel will show that:

* Rules prohibiting lobbying firms to pay for travel are often ignored or waived.

* Travel disclosure forms are commonly filed late, are incomplete and often are amended after media scrutiny.

* Members of Congress frequently ignore or have gotten the ethics committee to waive rules restricting the companions they take on privately financed trips.

Center for Public Integrity Executive Director, Roberta Baskin said of the bill, is kind of lobbying reform gives the term 'paper tiger' a new meaning. In its attempt to address the problems at hand, Congress seems to be pursuing a plan to bury itself in paper, making it even harder to enforce the rules."

Previous attempts to address lack of enforcement have been met by strong opposition. In March, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., proposed the creation of an Independent Office of Public Integrity to oversee lobbying activities and enforce disclosure laws. Their amendment was defeated by in a 67-30 vote.


Additional information can be found here:
Special Report
Privately Sponsored Trips Hot Tickets on Capitol Hill
Study finds almost $50 million spent on travel for lawmakers and aides.

Lobbying FAQ: What is Permissible? Out of Bounds? Punishable?

Open Trackback at:
Leaning Straight Up
Gribbit's Word
Stop the ACLU
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns
Point Five
Stuck on Stupid - Check out Zarqawi's 72 Virgins that Await him. (ROFL)
Outside the Beltway
The Uncooperative Blogger
TMH's Bacon Bits

Others blogging this issue:
Fullosseousflap with "Representative William Jefferson Watch: Democrats in AWKWARD Position But Vote to Throw Jefferson Off the Ways and Means Committee"

Clean up Washington with "Corruption and Reform News Roundup"

Curiouser & Curiouser with "Too funny To Be Real"