Thursday, March 29, 2007

Did I read that right?

Are they now trying to redefine what a father is?
NOW Demands Access to Program Geared to Fathers

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 29, 2007; 11:30 AM

It's called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, and the Bush administration doles out up to $50 million annually to fund its programs to build job skills and help fathers connect better with their children. But the National Organization for Women says the effort is illegal because it's only about men.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

House Republicans protecting John Doe

Its nice to see the Republicans starting to get their groove back...

House votes to protect 'John Does' on flights

By Audrey Hudson

March 27, 2007

House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.

After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats' Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.

Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and "John Does," passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a "chilling effect" on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans -- airline passengers included -- must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.

Of course as always the Dems tried to support the terrorists;
Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.
"Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law," said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling

Powered by ScribeFire.

Iran violates Geneva Conventions

So where's the outrage?

One more thing: these uniformed British servicemen (and woman), unlike captured terrorists, are entitled to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, which Iran has signed. Pretty much every aspect of their treatment has violated the Convention: a video showing them in captivity has been filmed and played on television, they have been "interrogated," in Iran's own description, and are now being held incommunicado in an undisclosed location. Has anyone noticed any outcry from the "world community" about this? Does the Geneva Convention apply to anyone other than the U.S.?

More over at Powerline.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

If this is muzzled....

Climate scientist sees cover-up

By Eric Pfeiffer


March 20, 2007

A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job [media] interviews in recent years

powered by performancing firefox

powered by performancing firefox

Friday, March 16, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell is a blithering idiot!

I challenge you to get through her entire tirade without damaging your television set. She gets numerous facts wrong and no one challenges her except Elisabeth Hasselbeck who can't get a complete sentence out against the other three liberal rocket scientists on The Rosie O'Donnell Show, I mean The View.

How can Barbara Walters continue to allow this loudmouth blowhard to continue to spew this crap out as fact? You've got to start to questions Walters judgment on this.

powered by performancing firefox

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Hey...this all sounds mighty familiar!



Published: March 24, 1993

Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a “critical decision” in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno’s order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover.

Says He Won’t Resist

At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General’s move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.

But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno’s actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

“This case has been conducted with integrity,” Mr. Stephens said, “and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations.”

Nonetheless, lawyers who have followed the investigation have said that Mr. Stephens has been concerned that the Democratic Administration might try to upset his investigation.

Has Denied Wrongdoing

Mr. Rostenkowski has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of any impropriety. But if he is indicted, he would be forced by House rules to relinquish his chairmanship, a development that some lawmakers have said could seriously jeopardize Mr. Clinton’s efforts to steer his economic and health-care proposals through Congress.

Mr. Stephens and his prosecutors began the investigation that led them to review Mr. Rostenkowski’s activities in mid-1991, focusing initially on low-level employees at the House post office who absconded with money. There have been several guilty pleas as prosecutors have worked their way up the ranks at the mailing operation.

Mr. Rostenkowski has been under scrutiny since last year, when his office records were subpoenaed in an inquiry into whether someone in his office used his expense account fraudulently to obtain cash from the post office. Since then, some of his aides have testified to a grand jury and investigators have examined his use of campaign funds. Denies Any Connection

In announcing her order at her first news conference as Attorney General, Ms. Reno denied there was any connection between her action and the Rostenkowski case and said Mr. Stephens had been treated like other United States Attorneys.”

Ms. Reno said United States Attorneys “are absolutely integral to the whole success of the Department of Justice,” and her aides said today that she did not intend to immediately remove any whose presence was required to complete an investigation.

One official suggested that even Mr. Stephens might be asked to stay on until a successor is named, saying Ms. Reno had made no decisions about who she may choose on an interim basis.

All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General. Battles of the Past

Ms. Reno is under pressure to assert her control over appointments at the Justice Department. She was Mr. Clinton’s third choice for Attorney General and arrived after most of the department’s senior positions were already filled by the White House.

The comments of Ms. Reno and Mr. Stephens evoked the pitched battles of the past, when independent United States Attorneys resisted removal by new administrations.

In 1969, for instance Robert Morgenthau, now the Manhattan District Attorney, resisted efforts by the Nixon Administration to replace him as United States Attorney in New York until he was given what he called an “ultimatum” by President Richard M. Nixon to leave office.

In 1978, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell removed David W. Marston as United States Attorney in Philadelphia, provoking charges, never proved, that a lawmaker under scrutiny by Mr. Marston’s office had urged President Jimmy Carter to remove the prosecutor.

Four-Year Terms

United States Attorneys are appointed to serve four-year terms at the pleasure of the President. It was unclear whether Ms. Reno initiated the request for resignations or whether it was pressed on her by the White House. The Attorney General said it was a “joint decision.”

Ms. Reno said she wanted the resignations “so that the U.S. Attorneys presently in position will know where they stand and that we can begin to build a team.”

Some Administration officials dismissed Mr. Stephens’s veiled assertions about the Attorney General’s motives as “absurd,” as one put it, saying that what was surprising was that it had taken so long before the Justice Department could begin putting its own appointees in place. Abortion Clinic Violence

On other topics, Ms. Reno said she would work with Democrats in Congress to prepare legislation to give Federal agencies a larger role in protecting abortion clinics.

Her comments came after she had ordered a review of current law, which she said was inadequate “to prevent or to help prevent physical interference with access to abortion clinics.”

She also ruled out a Federal inquiry into the death of Dr. David Gunn, a physician who was shot to death as he entered an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., apparently by a man who said he was an anti-abortion activist. “Florida law on this subject is more effective than Federal law,” said Ms. Reno, a former Florida prosecutor.

Ms. Reno also said she had not decided whether to replace William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who has been found to have violated ethics rules.

powered by performancing firefox

Monday, March 12, 2007

Jim Webb, you wanted him you got him!

Sen Jim Webb on ABC This Week with George Stephanopolous trying to say he is for a withdrawal by saying he is not for a withdrawal;
STEPHANOPOULOS : But you Senate Democrats are trying to put more pressure on the Maliki government. You said — you've introduced legislation this week, Senator Reid, the majority leader has, calling for a goal of getting all combat forces out of Iraq by next March 31st.

But this summer, you told Joe Klein of Time magazine — I want to show what you told Joe Klein. He was talking about a discussion you had, and he said, when he, Webb, talks about the war in Iraq, "Jim Webb, the Democrat running for the Senate, U.S. Senate from Virginia, likes to paraphrase Dwight Eisenhower on the war in Korea: Anyone who tells you we can set a timetable for withdrawal doesn't understand war."

STEPHANOPOULOS : If a timetable was wrong then, why is it right now?

WEBB: Well, I don't think we should have a specific timetable for getting out. I've always said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS : So you're against this legislation by Senator Reid?

WEBB: First of all, let's say — let me clarify two things. The overt pressure on the Maliki government to solve the problem from within has not come from most of the Democrats. You're hearing it, for instance, either from Senator McConnell yesterday. This is sort of an odd situation that shows the unreality of a lot of this debate.

Now the Republicans are saying, this is Iraq's last chance. This is their last chance. Maliki has to get it right, when, you know, I mean, we...

STEPHANOPOULOS : Yeah, but is it true, though?

WEBB: No. Let me be clear here. There's only so much that a weak central government surrounded by armed factions can do. We saw that in Lebanon. I was there as a journalist with the — you had the almost identical situation in microcosm.

But the rhetoric from the Republicans and other people who are saying that is almost counterintuitive. They're saying, this is your last chance, when you're a weak government and you're not able to basically control the factions that you're responsible for, but what happens...

STEPHANOPOULOS : But let me go back to this issue of the timetable. I understand (inaudible) timetable...

WEBB: I want to get to that, but I think this is a very important point here, where they're saying, this is your last chance, but what does that mean if the Maliki government cannot do it? Are they going to favor a total withdrawal? We don't know. I mean, I think that's an unrealistic thing to say.

Now, with respect to timetables, I've said over and over again, the first thing — I mean, for three years, before I ever thought I'd run for office — that the first thing that must happen is a diplomatic umbrella, the sort of thing that we saw yesterday. And by the way, I congratulated Secretary Rice on the Senate floor last Monday about this. And from there, you can start withdrawing.

What I've said is, you can’t simply start withdrawing and then expect a diplomatic settlement to fall into place. That's a sign of weakness.

STEPHANOPOULOS : But this is still a timetable for withdrawal.

WEBB: And we now have — no, we now have, first of all, the beginnings of a true diplomatic process in place. This legislation, the last time I read it, which was on Friday, basically says we will begin withdrawing combat troops from the streets of Iraq within four months — or 120 days after the signing of this legislation.

STEPHANOPOULOS : With the goal of redeploying...

WEBB: With the goal.

STEPHANOPOULOS : ... by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq...

WEBB: Other than...

STEPHANOPOULOS : ... except for a limited number...

WEBB: Yeah.

STEPHANOPOULOS : ... for protecting U.S. personnel training and equipping Iraqi forces or conducting counterterrorism. But that is still a timetable for withdrawal.

WEBB: Well, that's a — no, it's a timetable to begin and to get our troops off the streets of Iraq, which, by the way, even the United States military, active-duty military, I think agrees with. Only 35 percent of the active-duty military agrees with the Bush plan, according to the service Times poll.

So, it's a way to push this administration, as we've been doing in these hearings, to couple military withdrawal with a diplomatic effort. And that's the way this should have gone. What I'm opposed to, and I'm still opposed to, is the notion that we should be withdrawing militarily in the absence of rigorous diplomacy.

powered by performancing firefox

Thursday, March 01, 2007

"Balance as bias"

I had to read this three times to be sure Al Gore actually said that the media is biased against global warming because they are providing balanced coverage. Say what?
"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.

First, its not consensus...and since when is a balanced approach bad?

powered by performancing firefox