Hey RightWingers,

I'm in the process of a temporary move this weekend and I won't be back fully online until probably Monday, so I won't be posting until at least then. In the mean time, keep up with the best - Expose the Left, Drudge Report, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, or try out some of the great bloggers in my blog roll (see left side bar). You can also use and abuse my archives and and categories while I'm gone.

You can definitely entertain yourself for a few seconds with this hilarious video I found on YouTube put together by the Tonight Show, making it appear as if President Bush and Rummy are singing the Kanye West song, Gold Digger.

Kind of funny that they're singing a Kanye "George Bush doesn't care about black people" West song, and I'm sure that was no mistake on the Tonight Show's behave, but it did remind me of West's ridiculous comments about the President and made me wonder about the massive flooding we saw in New England this past week.

For starters, local officials evacuated people and threatened them with arrest for trying to go back to their homes, where as we know in NOLA Bush begged officials to call a mandatory evacuation, days before the storm hit, but they refused. That's a funny simple fact to always remember with all of the Bush bashing over Katrina. Simply forcing an evacuation could have saved a lot of lives, and the whole event would have been totally different. Not to mention that a lot of the emotion still involved is based on lies being reported at the time of bodies piling up at the Superdome, gang activities, rapes, etc. The cable news networks hyped a bunch of rumors we found out were almost all BS a few days later. And this isn't even getting in to the failure of levees that should have held, the squandering of funds locally, the Louisiana emergency officials being indicted shortly before the storm for having up to $60 million in federal funds unaccounted for, the warning signs ignored by the Corps of Engineers, etc. etc.

Anyway, setting that all aside, I found it odd this week that we didn't have Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine residents going on TV saying "George Bush doesn't care about white people", since he hasn't (to my knowledge) made a visit to New England.

Oh and one more thing about New Orleans... Whites died at an extremely high and disproportionate rate in New Orleans, don't let the media and liberals (like there's a difference) lie to you. This is older, but the numbers have continued to reflect the same thing, but I don't have time to dig up the latest count at the moment.

In closing:

I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black white family, it says, 'They're looting.' You see a white black family, it says, 'They're looking for food.' And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black white. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help — with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black white people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way — and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us! (Black White People)

 

(h/t Drudge)

This actually sounds like genuine progress to me, but I haven't had time to read it all yet. Any input?

The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally.

Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure.

I'm not clear on what these vehicle barriers are yet...

Construction of the barrier would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. He said border areas where barriers already exist have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.

"What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries."

I'm still not clear why Durbin should be in office or allowed to speak ever after comparing Gitmo troops to Nazis, etc. That's all I think of anytime I see his name. He's a disgrace, and he should be deported (but if he sneaks back quick enough he could gain citizenship under the new amnesty plan).

Read on for more bloviating from people on all sides, and GOPers eatting their own.

I haven't commented much on all the latest immigration developments for a couple reasons. For starters there has just been a ton of other news going on at the same time, and I know the rest of the blogosphere is saturated by border/immigration talk and I guess I'd rather not just get lost in the sea of it all. In addition to the fact that I've been covering all the other stuff going on, the immigration news is just coming in rapid fire and to try to get a post up, I know I'd be leaving out a lot of things I'd like to say about it (like I am about to here).

Anyway, here's my thing. I think we need a fence, similar to what the Minutemen have designed, running down almost all of the border. I think if we could do this, there wouldn't be a need for a bunch more guards. That is why I'm cautiously optimistic about this development, until someone tells me that I'm missing something and this doens't mean anything and I just got to excited when I saw the Drudge siren going off.

As for the President, yes I'm angry with his weak handling of the immigration issue. But I'm a supporter of most of his policies, and we're obviously a lot better than if a Democrat was in office in many different areas. And yes the border is one of the, if not the most important issue facing us. But I feel like he's kind of stuck.

This is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If the President and GOP gets really tough on the border, what will happen? Well first the Senate Democrats will do the only thing they seem to know how to do... Rant and rave, filibuster and obstruct. Nothing will get done, the delay will go from weeks, to months, to years.

Even if somehow we did get a tough plan pushed through, what would happene next? If it hadn't already, the Dems would pull the race card. It would be all about those racist Republicans trying to keep latinos out. It would be, as it always is, all about the votes for Democrats. We saw the signs at the Dallas illegal rally with reminders to vote "Democrat in 2006" above a picture of Mexico and Texas fused together. We also saw Hillary and Kennedy become stars of the shows at a couple different rallies.

Seeing as how hispanics are the largest minority, and not far off from being a majority in this country, the libs, with the help of their trusty media, would stir all of these people up to vote Democrat if Republicans got tough. GOP would lose power, and Dems would just reverse any good they had done. Again, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

My point is that I'm a little disturbed by all the giving up on the President I've been seeing from conservative bloggers. Do you really think not showing up on election day is going to make things better?! Yes this is arguably the most important issue, but do you really want the Democrats in charge? They aren't going to be any better, and in fact we know they'll be worse. Let's just calm down the emotion, and think realisitically about what not voting could mean for the country. I'm just scared that there's this movement to "send a message", but when the dust settles it won't matter, because we'll have Democrats taking back at least one house.

Back to my personal opinion quickly... I'm absolutely for enforcement first. I'm a little less concerned about the workers who are already here, as I am about the security issue of the open border. This goes back to why I want the fence. As I said before, perhaps there could be some type of extreme tax hike on illegals after cracking down on employers and making them have records of employees, and make them pay taxes. They would pay these for their entire lives, not ever be able to collect social security, and get some type of "worker" status, and maybe after 10 years, if they can speak english and have clean records, they could apply for citizenship. Just rough, off the cuff idea that could be tweeked in all directions.

 

One of the teachers honored in my unhinged teachers and professors post a few weeks ago has rightfully been fired. If you recall Steve White thought it was okay to show the Bush/GOP are a**holes online "filmstrip". In addition to that behavior that should have gotten him fired, he showed sex videos to his students as well:

ATHENS — During a meeting that lasted about 4½ hours, the Limestone County school board voted to dismiss a teacher accused of showing his students sexually themed Internet videos.

Oh I'm sorry, "sexually themed". Anyway, here's the fun part:

Soon afterward, a state Democratic Party official said Steve White also could be removed from the ballot in the upcoming election in which White is a candidate.

Among the board's findings leading to its canceling White's contract was a charge that he showed students an Internet clip depicting a former president and his wife engaged in sexual activity. Another charge was that he showed students a computer image of a girl exposing a breast.

Why can't you liberals just do your jobs?

White is also a candidate for the state House District 4 seat. The Alabama Democratic Party said Tuesday afternoon that he had not withdrawn from the race as it had requested.

Well, I said do your job, but I doubt you'll be getting that one now. If you stay on the ballot, and if you won, it would be pretty ridiculous. I would have some questions for those voters, like - "if this guy can't decide what is appropriate for 8th graders, do you really want him as a policy maker?"

Michelle Malkin has been on the Steve White story from the beginning, and has more.

 

In my last update on NSA phonegate I discussed some of the selective outrage of the left. Of course I have to keep wondering why the left isn't angry at the ACLU who is collecting personal information for fund-raising purposes, as opposed to the NSA, which is collecting call records with NO names or personal information attached, simply so that their supercomputers can search for patterns in billions and trillions of calls. However in the last post I specifically wondered why the left and the media aren't upset about the Echelon program (under Clinton) or Clinton's spying on pro-life political opponents. I'm not expecting an answer. As always, scroll to the bottom of this post to catch up on all past updates on the story.

While yesterday's news about BellSouth denying the USA Today story and any involvement with the NSA was weird enough, it just got weirder. Verizon is now denying the entire thing as well, leaving AT&T all alone. I wonder if they'll come out with any kind of statement in the next few days?

About Verizon (from a USA Today blog, if you can believe it):

Verizon Communications this afternoon said that it "was not asked by the (National Security Agency) to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer records" from any of its telephone businesses "or any call data from those records."

Any media reports that say it did those things "are simply false," the company stated.

USA Today remains confident in their initial reporting.

"We’re confident in our coverage of the phone database story. We will look closely into the issues raised by the Bell South's and Verizon’s statements."

Does that sound eerily familiar to anyone? (*cough*Dan Rather*cough)

Verizon has posted their statement at their own web site here, and I've reproduced the entire thing below, because it's very important:

NEW YORK -- Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ) today issued the following statement regarding news coverage about the NSA program which the President has acknowledged authorizing against al-Qaeda:

As the President has made clear, the NSA program he acknowledged authorizing against al-Qaeda is highly-classified. Verizon cannot and will not comment on the program. Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to it.

That said, media reports made claims about Verizon that are simply false.

One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls.

This is false. From the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago, Verizon had three major businesses – its wireline phone business, its wireless company and its directory publishing business. It also had its own Internet Service Provider and long-distance businesses. Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records. None of these companies – wireless or wireline – provided customer records or call data.

Another error is the claim that data on local calls is being turned over to NSA and that simple "calls across town" are being "tracked." In fact, phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls. In any event, the claim is just wrong. As stated above, Verizon’s wireless and wireline companies did not provide to NSA customer records or call data, local or otherwise.

Again, Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program. Verizon always stands ready, however, to help protect the country from terrorist attack. We owe this duty to our fellow citizens. We also have a duty, that we have always fulfilled, to protect the privacy of our customers. The two are not in conflict. When asked for help, we will always make sure that any assistance is authorized by law and that our customers’ privacy is safeguarded.

So they won't confirm or deny any relationship with the NSA, but they seem to have denied virtually everything about this "new" revelation. I suspect they can't confirm or deny a relationship, because they probably have a limited one as it pertains to wiretapping of suspected terrorists. But if you insist on knowing about it, then you really don't care about national security.

The reason these programs are secret is to catch terrorists. If they are known, terrorists will communicate a different way. Thanks, as always, to the politically motivated leakers for hurting national security again.

Anyway, this Verizon statement seems much more firm than BellSouth's statement, but as I said, either way AT&T is the last one standing. Here's the BellSouth statement, which again is a just little more ambiguous than Verizon's:

ATLANTA, May 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement regarding media reports about U.S. governmental agency data collection may be attributed to BellSouth Corporation (NYSE: BLS):

There has been much speculation in the last several days about the role that BellSouth may have played in efforts by the National Security Agency (NSA) and other governmental agencies to keep our nation safe.

As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA, the Company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA.

BellSouth has built a successful business because of the trust that our customers have placed with us. We will continue to take our obligations to our customers seriously.

Expose the Left has video of Brit Hume playing "Expose the Poll", smashing the deceptive polling practices of USA Today. Surprised?

Previous:
NSA Updates: Old News, No Names/Addresses Collected, BellSouth Denies Involvement, More...
USA Today NSA Story A Rehash Of December 2005 NY Times Story
ACLU Data Collection! Selective Lefty Outrage At NSA?
Today's Bogus/Manufactured NSA Anti-Civil Rights Story

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

The liberal hate and indoctrination on high school and college campuses is no surprise, but I find it particularly disturbing when they try to ram the gay agenda down these kids' throats (no pun intended).

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Port Washington - Parents are angry and school leaders are promising action in response to a "Heterosexual Questionnaire," approved by two teachers, that asked students questions such as: "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?"

I don't think I really need to go beyond that, but I will...

Hundreds of Port Washington High School students were told to submit written answers and discuss the survey.

The questionnaire was distributed by a student organization, which then led a full class-period discussion. Two teachers approved distribution of the survey. The principal did not.

The teachers who Woelfel said are responsible for the survey - social studies teacher Sarah Olson and communications teacher Julie Grudzinski - could not be reached for comment.

Woelfel estimated that the survey was given to about 400 of the school's 930 students on April 25, the day before the national Day of Silence, an annual event co-sponsored by the New York City-based Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

According to the Day of Silence Web site, the event is a "student-led day of action" that attempts to eliminate harassment of non-heterosexual students.

Woelfel said that, in connection with the Day of Silence, the school's Students for Unity spent the day visiting classrooms. They distributed the surveys and led discussions, he said.

These are just excerpts of the important parts of course, and I was about to note that the principal is taking action and will hopefully discipline the teachers soon, until I reread and see that she seems to be in support of this, just against the fact that parents weren't notified. She's confused, because the issue is the fact that this doesn't belong in school at all. What if my family doesn't believe in homosexuality? Just because the media has mainstreamed it in recent years, we now have to be forced to accept it.

Some of the questions apparently were intended to make heterosexuals understand what it's like to be gay or lesbian. Those questions included: "What do you think caused your heterosexuality?" and "When did you decide you were heterosexual?"

Students in the group presenting the survey were trying to convey that "students who have an alternative lifestyle get asked these questions every day, so please be considerate. It was an exercise in compassion and understanding that did not work out real well," Woelfel said.

Woelfel said the survey violated school policy because parents were not notified in advance and given the opportunity to decide whether their children should participate.

Um, the problem is there is no evidence that anyone is born gay. I would be considered harassing a gay if I were to say:
"Don't you find it a little odd that you can't reproduce? Do you think it's a coincidence that we have two sexes, with two unique reproductive organs that are specifically designed (lol, whoops I mean evolved) to fit together for reproducing?"

Okay liberals, here's where you attack me and say:
"You don't have to except it, just let them live their lives... leave your fundamentalist Christianity out of it"

To which I respond:
"When did I say anything about Christianity? I just stated some common sense about the matter... as for leaving them alone, that would be fine if high school students weren't constantly being bombarded with the gay message."

Health/Sex Ed. class is bad enough, how about we just have classes teach what they're supposed to, not pass out tests with the agenda to legitimize gays.

What's next? We constantly see studies where they find the "gene" that makes someone fat or lazy, or have a temper. Should the kid who gets in fights a lot have a group come to school and tell everyone that they have to accept the way he is, because he's born that way. Hell, at least science can prove the higher propensity for that type of behavior, but they can't prove homosexuality. I could sit here and list off a million parallels, but you get the point. This forced acceptance doesn't belong anywhere, certainly not in school. Why is there "separation of church and state" but not "separation of agenda driven groups"? I see those groups to be as offensive as any liberal might find Christianity. Do you think the school would entertain a pro-life speaker who spoke totally about science and not religion?

Sophomore Justin Perry said he didn't like being surveyed because he is against homosexuality - although he doesn't think it's something that people should be harassed about.

Perry said he did not understand the point of spending a class period on the survey. "I know it's a survey," he said, "but what is it trying to teach us?"

Freshman Jaime Reuter said the survey caused such a stir that, even though her class didn't take the survey, her social studies teacher made it part of a class discussion a couple of days later.

Reuter said she would have been offended if asked to take the survey. "I shouldn't have to answer that because it's private information," she said.

Right on, who's business is it, and what purpose does this serve? The people didn't want to collect information. They are there to push their agendas. Liberals know when to strike impressionable youths, which is why the liberal virus is so prevalent in schools. This should make everyone sick.

***UPDATE***
Sister Todjah has a post up about this now and she managed to dig up this graphic of the questions asked on the survey. Here's the text of those questions, and a couple more not included in the graphic (thanks Sister Toljah).

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?

3. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexuality? How did they react?

4. Could it be that your heterosexuality is just a phase?

5. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of your same gender?

6. If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn’t perfer it? Isn’t it likely that you just haven’t met the right same-sex partner yet?

7. Heterosexuals have a history of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned heterosexual out of fear of rejection?

8. Why do you flaunt your lifestyle with wedding rings, photos at work and talk of your heterosexual escapades?

9. Your heterosexuality doesn’t offend me as long as you leave me alone, but why do so many heterosexulal try to seduce others into their orientation?

10. Are cancer, earthquakes and floods God’s way of punishing heterosexuals?

11. Considering the battering, abuse and divorce rate associated with heterosexual coupling, why would you want to enter into that kind of relationship?

12. If you should choose to have childern, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

13. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusively heterosexual lifestyle and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?

14. And anyway, why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

As much as I'd like to tear apart each of these questions, it's only going to put me in a bad mood.. But I have to hit a couple of these quickly.

Look at #10.... Is that separation of church and state? Not that these people belonged there in the first place, and not that they have an ounce of sense, but is it appropriate to say that unprovoked to high school kids? It would be one thing if a kid said that to them about being gay, but they didn't... And again, this is just so out of place.

What is the deal with number 13. Obviously all of these question are supposed to "turn the tables", but when homosexuality is clearly just NOT NORMAL to anyone, with a shred of common sense. Again they bring God in to it. I always argue without invoking God because they always dismiss that out of hand anyway. So "normal" is heterosexuality for the reasons I explained earlier. It's not just a coincidence that we have two sexes, male and female, with specifically designed (sorry, "evolved") reproductive organs, allowing for reproduction only by man and woman. Not man and man, not woman and woman. This is what "normal" is. Another quick dig at the evolutionsist mindset... Gays better smarten up and go straight otherwise "evolution" will do them through the process of "natural selection" right? After all, it's all about the stronger and best apt to further the species, right?

Sticking with the "normal" thing for just another second... I have to ask again, why haven't scientists isolated a gene or something to prove that gays are born that way? They can find genes that show a likelyhood for all sorts of behavior, physical features, and just about anything you can imagine now. Why can't they find "what makes a person gay"?

As for 14... What's your point? For starters, "Homosexuality" (a phrase I hate using because I feel like it legitimizes it) refers specifically to sex. Anyway, this is ridiculous because they apparently are acting like putting so much focus on sex is just a stereotype we have about them, but the simple fact that they came in with this survey only proves it further!

Sick.

 

***UPDATE***
AllahPundit over at HotAir.com has obtained audio of Jodie Foster's anti-Bush rant and Eminem rap, and it's accompanied by a photoshop of Foster's face on Eminem's body. Classic.

While Bill Cosby was busy encouraging young black women to take the reigns and determine their own future, and not rely on the young black men, many of whom have problems taking responsiblity for their children and focus more on the hip-hop/thug life than anything else, liberal actress Jodie Foster was reciting Eminem lyrics at the University of Pennsylvania.

It's been refreshing in recent years to have Bill Cosby tell the younger black generations to stop blaming white people/the man for all of their problems, and take some responsibility, versus the shakedown brothers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (and many other clones) who make their living in the race trade, instead of focusing on the individual.

While the shakedown brothers and the Democratic party as a whole like to keep black people down by essentially telling them "no you can't", real leaders like Bill Cosby are telling them "yes you can!". The left has spent decades making promises of entitlements to blacks and minorities (in exchange for votes) and telling them that they can't succeed, but this has produced only negative results. Cosby, who isn't making friends with many other "black leaders", has obviously taken the opposite approach. (via Macon Telegraph)

ATLANTA - Bill Cosby challenged Spelman College's graduates "to take charge" Sunday, adding those leaving the historically black college for women have no choice but to lead.

"You have to know that it is time for you all to take charge," Cosby said. "You have to seriously see yourselves not as the old women where the men stood in front and you all stood behind, because the men, most of them are in prison."

Of course an exaggeration, but his point is well taken. There is an extremely high rate of blacks in the correctional system. The other "black leaders" would blame this on racial profiling and blame crime on poverty, rather than say "raise your kids right".

Added Cosby: "It is time for you to pick up the pace and lead because the men are not there. They're not there and every one of you young women know it."

This is a huge problem. I can't remember the exact figure, but last I heard, out of wedlock black births were something like 75-80%.

In 1987, Cosby and his wife, Camille, gave a $20 million gift to Spelman, which is celebrating its 125th anniversary this year. The Camille Olivia Hanks Cosby Academic Center on the campus opened in 1996.

Wow, talk about putting your money where your mouth is! $20 million!? Hey Jesse Jackson does good things too! He shows up to harass companies and threaten them with negative media if they don't hire more blacks. Oh wait, his behavior 99% of the time is nothing short of shameful.

In his current "A Call Out with Cosby" speaking tour, he has emphasized the need for proper parenting and education as self-help answers for low-income, urban families.

In an interview with the Associated Press before his commencement speech, Cosby acknowledged that some would say he is "preaching to the choir" by talking to the Spelman graduates about those who fail to place an emphasis on parenting and education.

"I smiled and I say, 'every Sunday so does the preacher,' " Cosby said.

"The message is clear. What's not clear is why black scholars, who ought to be saying what's on their minds, are not putting it into the African-American community the way it ought to be. They ought to be challenging the issues of high dropout rates of African-American males."

Exactly. Where are the poverty pimps to encourage people and tell them that they can do it on their own, rather than make everything about how they are held back because they're black.

Cosby told the graduates that the same male students who are dropping out of high school "have memorized the lyrics of very difficult rap songs."

Added Cosby: "And they know how to send their sperm cells out and then walk away from the responsibility of something called fatherhood."

I have to say, I've personally witnessed these problems and it's a really disturbing thing to see. Go to any big or even medium sized city in the country and you'll see this. Actually, this has even spread to small suburb areas in recent years.

Cosby said he acknowledged that his criticisms are not meant for all black males, but he said 70 percent of black graduates this year are female.

"Who's running the show?" Cosby asked. "It appears that the male is, but I have news for you. It's your turn.

"We want you to lead in business. We want you to lead in medicine. We want you to lead in everything."

Didn't you get the memo from the NAACP Bill, you're supposed to tell them that they can't succeed and that they deserve government handouts and shouldn't strive for success.

Cosby made a reference to his critics, who he called "all those liberals" and in his response he told the graduates "I'll be darned."

HA! My favorite part of the article. A very Hannityesque quote: "all those liberals". That's so awesome.

"I had three Christmases with no tree, no presents," Cosby said, adding he was too embarrassed to invite friends into his home during the holiday "because I didn't want them to see I had no tree, no presents.

"Don't tell me I don't know, don't tell me I'm out of touch," he said. "I'm telling you I am in touch."

Now as I said, actress Jodie Foster had a bit of a different message in her commencement speech to graduating students at the University of Pennsylvania. AP via Breitbart reports:

You can add rapping to the list of Jodie Foster's talents. The Oscar- winning actress spoke Monday at the University of Pennsylvania's commencement ceremonies, ending her address with the chorus of Eminem's "Lose Yourself" from "8 Mile," the semi-autobiographical 2002 film in which he starred.

She earned laughs from the graduates by taking pictures of them from the podium and then by recalling her own years at Yale. But she struck a serious note later, saying the country and world are worse off than they were four years ago, and challenging graduates to change that.

The U.S. "squandered" the goodwill and sympathy other nations offered after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Foster said. She also criticized officials for the "disastrous and shameful" handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Was this the place for politics? It's pretty clear what she meant there, she might as well have said "vote Democrat".

Anyway, what is the deal with rapping some Eminem lyrics? First of all, is Eminem still cool? Second, is he popular among graduating college seniors? I would hope not. So while Cosby is rightly slamming the hip-hop obsessed lifestyle, Foster is making an ass out of herself by rapping at a commencement speech. I suppose someone told her "the kids love Eminem, that will really make them love you", but even so these lyrics are stupid anyway:

You better lose yourself in the music, the moment You own it, you better never let it go You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow This opportunity comes once in a lifetime yo,

So lame. I also have to wonder how familiar Foster is with Eminem. Yeah, the Eminem who dropped out of high school after failing the ninth grade three times!!! Excellent choice Jodie.

 

Fox News just reported that and investigation in to anti-American University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has found that he committed serious academic misconduct. No link from FNC yet. But this from Rocky Mountain News:

BOULDER, Colo. — An investigation of Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor who likened some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi, uncovered serious cases of misconduct in his academic research, a University of Colorado spokesman said today.

One member of the five-person investigative committee recommended that ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill be fired, and four recommended he be suspended, university spokesman Barrie Hartman said.

Churchill has denied doing anything wrong.

Michelle Malkin is all over this, and points to another Rocky Mountain News story, that says there will be a press conference at 2:30 pm. Not sure if this is eastern time, or mountain time since this is a Colorado publication.

Michelle also gives us the direct link to the PDF of the investigation's report at the University of Colorado web site.

***UPDATE***
NBC affiliate News 9 in Denver reports that recommendations for how to deal with Churchill range from suspension to termination.

DENVER - 9NEWS has learned recommendations made by members of the investigative committee looking into allegations of misconduct by tenured University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill vary from suspension to termination.

Two members of the committee say in the report Churchill should not be dismissed and the most appropriate discipline is suspension without pay for two years.

Three members think the violations are so serious that he falls under university criteria for dismissal. One believes he should be dismissed outright and the other two think the most appropriate discipline is suspension without pay for five years.

And yet another Rocky Mountain News article has more on just what Ward Churchill did (you know, besides comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis):

BOULDER -- A University of Colorado investigative committee found deliberate and serious misconduct by ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill, including plagiarism, fabrication, and "serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research," according to a report made public today.

The committee also noted Churchill was "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions" when he wrote the U.S. government distributed blankets infested with smallpox to Mandan Indians in 1837 on the Upper Missouri River.

More:
California Conservative

***UPDATE***
Hot Air has posted some of the audio from the press conference.

 

New White House Press Secretary Tony Snow is holding his first press briefing, and predictably the usual front row vultures are in attack mode. I'm sure Expose the Left will have video for us later.

***UPDATE***
AllahPundit at Hot Air has posted video of Tony Snow doing battle with Helen Thomas. Expose the Left has video of this as well, though I was hoping someone would have the David Gregory part that came just before the Helen Thomas part.

Also, I missed this part earlier, but Tony Snow got a little chocked up when speaking about his and his mother's battles with cancer. Bill Sammon for the Examiner:

WASHINGTON - White House Press Secretary Tony Snow became emotional during his first on-camera press briefing Tuesday when the topic turned to his battle with colon cancer, which also claimed his mother's life.

"I had cancer last year," Snow said when asked why he was wearing a yellow bracelet from fellow cancer survivor Lance Armstrong's LiveStrong Foundation.

"It's going to sound stupid and I'll be personal here, but having gone through this last year was the best thing that ever happened to me." The former Fox News anchor choked up and fell silent in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, which was packed with more than 100 journalists, or twice the usual audience.

At length, Snow cracked one of several self-deprecating jokes to break the tension.

"It's my Ed Muskie moment," he said, referring to former Sen. Edmund Muskie, D-Maine, whose 1972 presidential campaign fizzled after he appeared to cry in front of the press in New Hampshire.

"I lost a mother to cancer when I was 17: same type, colon cancer," Snow said. "And I feel every day's a blessing."

Expose the Left has video of this as well.

Previous:
Tony Snow's First Duty? Blast The Liberal MSM For Unfair Coverage!!!
PHOTOSHOP: Tony Snow Set To Handle Vultures As New Press Secretary
BREAKING: Tony Snow Will Be New White House Press Secretary
White House Sources Say Tony Snow Likely To Be New Press Secretary
Tony Snow To Go From Fox News To White House Press Secretary?

 

(I initially kind of live blogged this from when I first heard about it a couple hours ago, so the post was a bit of a mess. I'm going to clean it up now, so if you're checking back, that is why it will look different.

******UPDATE - HOTAIR.COM HAS POSTED THE VIDEO*******
Hot Air has posted the video, plus a still that appears to show the nose cone of the plane. The Political Pit Bull and Expose the Left have posted the video as well. It's basically just a closer shot of what we've already see, and similar in that it snaps a shot every half second so we see the nose cone and then the explosion. Definitely nothing to change the minds of conspiracy theorists. But again, I really wish they would all just take a look at this exhaustive Pentagon specific debunking.

In a new Hot Air post, AllahPundit uses freeze frames from both the old and new 9/11 Pentagon videos to show you where the plane was, with the help of this debunking piece I always link to. I'm going to take it upon myself to take credit for the hat tip because I posted this in the comments of the original post yesterday, and have posted it a number of places over the past couple days. AllahPundit says "But then someone pointed me to", and as I said, I believe I'm that someone, and going to take credit.

***SCROLL FOR UPDATESI***

Fox News is reporting that the Department of Defense plans to release video of Flight 77 crashing in to the Pentagon on 9/11. This is huge because until this point there is only one video of that event, which doesn't really show much. It's almost like a time lapsed photograph that just shows a fireball all of a sudden.

The extreme left conspircy theorists have maintained that the illuminati/White House has hidden these tapes so that the public wouldn't see the predator drone/missile/non-commercial airline hit the Pentagon. I'll be interested to see their reaction when this tape comes out. Oh wait, I can tell you what it will be. "THE TAPE IS A FAKE!" They'll try to pick it apart, but as usual won't be taken seriously when all of their critiques are debunked, as they have been with every single part of their conspiracy theories to this point.

Incase you'd like to see the debunking of all the Pentagon specific conspiracy theories you should take a look at this thorough piece that just trashes them better than anything I've seen.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

***UPDATE I***
Fox now reporting that the tape will be released in one hour, 1:00 pm ET
FNC's Brett Baier has seen the videos, and from what he just reported, it doesn't sound like there is a whole lot new in the two videos that will be released. I'm afraid this won't shut up the conspiracy theorists. I mean, the link I provide below thoroughly debunks them beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they don't give it up. I don't think these tapes will change anything.

Bill Hemmer just reported that it is the same kind of tape as the one we've all seen, that captures every half second, so I'm sure we'll certainly not have any change from conspiracy theory crowd.

***UPDATE II***
Finally, World Net Daily has an article about this. Not much else yet though

***UPDATE III***
Judicial Watch, who filed the lawsuit and has gotten the tapes out through the freedom of information act, has more.

***UPDATE IV***
BLOGOSPHERE BUZZ
Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Suitably Flip, Publius Rendezvous, Stop the ACLU, Texas Rainmaker, E L Frederick, PA Pundits, Environmental Republican, Protein Wisdom, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theory, The Dragon and the Phoenix, Reality Pundit, Ace of Spades HQ, The Sandbox, Ninth State, The Political Pit Bull, The Jawa Report, Bare Knuckle Politics, SuperFun PowerHour, High Desert Wanderer, Joust the Facts, Wizbang, Unalienable Right, In the Bullpen, Fore Left, Homeland Stupidity, Leaning Straight Up, Grace That Surprises, Main Street Journal, The Next Frontier, Wizbang, Blue Star Chronicles, Right-Wing Muckrakers Inc., American Conservative Daily, Sister Toldjah, A Lady's Ruminations, Hyscience, Occasional Outbursts

 

If you're looking for the "Bathroom Girl Talk" story, see this post.

It was only a few months ago that CNN flashed a giant black "X" over the face of Vice President Cheney (see here and here) during a speech, but it seems CNN rushed the sequel and X2 opened on the small screen last night.

As the President was rehearsing for his speech on illegal immigration and all the networks were awaiting their signal to pick up the live feed, CNN jumped the gun and caught 16 seconds of the rehearsal and of President Bush looking around the room. Expose the Left has the video.

Drudge explains it like this:

CNN AIRS FALSE-START LIVE; NETWORK CALLS MISTAKE

CNN aired President Bush false-starting his immigration speech from the Oval Office on Monday night!

The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the president starting and stopping his message, then looking at an unseen director for guidance.

"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.

FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the 'rehearsal.'

NBC NEWS, which was operating the television camera in the Oval Office, said late Monday that it gave the president a cue to begin his speech too early.

Anyway, let me just say that this time I buy the CNN excuse. The X thing, as we know, was defended by some Bush deranged liberal at the CNN call center as "freedom of speech", and by all accounts it had to be deliberate. Yeah I know, they said it had to do with transitioning from a satellite feed to another camera, some crap like that... But why then has no one ever seen the same thing happen on any channel? Come on, we know what happened there. Some liberal, possibly a college intern, thought it would be funny. Perhaps he didn't even mean for it to go on air, but it may have been something the Bush haters at CNN do as a joke all the time... but this time someone slipped and hit the wrong button taking it live briefly. I wouldn't go further and say it is some deep subliminal message scheme, but it was most certainly deliberate. Last night's snafu (first time I've ever used that word by the way) was clearly just a mistake though.

 

Since my last update on the NSA calling records story, there have been a few developments...

It's unlikely you heard this reported on most other channels and shows, but as Brit Hume pointed out on Special Report in the Political Grapevine segment, the NSA program doesn't involve phone customers' names, addresses or any other personal information. Expose the Left has the video, and the whacked out liberal commenters went wild as usual. One challenged Humes credibility, while ignoring the fact that Hume was quoting the original USA Today story, but a sidebar burried on the fifth page of the story.

Hume:

Not until page five, however, does the paper report the following: “Phone customers’ names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program.”

Scroll to the bottom of this post for links to my extensive previous posts on "Phonegate", in which I've been saying this all along. I also discussed how much more data mining businesses are doing for marketing purposes, beyond anything the NSA is doing, and of course mention out the ACLU is even obtain all kinds of personal information for fundraising purposes, while being the most outspoken about the NSA!

Here's the real deal, as I understand it, about what the NSA is doing here.... How many phone calls are made in the United States every day? I was unable to turn up a figure but I would guess it's got to be at least 500 million and could easily be over a billion, agreed? Even if you wanted to ridiculously low ball it, you'd be talking in the tens of millions. Again, that's every day. Start adding up per week, month, year and you've got even more of an insanely large pile of records. No group of people could ever sift through these. Bush and Cheney aren't sitting in a back room cross checking lists of people who made calls to DNC HQ with calls they made to their friends and sending out secret police.

What seems to be really happening, as discussed in previous posts, is that these billions and billions of all records are going in to a supercomputer that has the capabilities to search for patterns. If the complex programs find a repeated pattern of this guy calling that guy and that guy calling a cave in Afghanistan, and then another guy gets calls from that cave calls a known radicall mosque, that also makes calls to the first two guys who live in different parts of the country, it might set off a buzzer to let the NSA take a look at it. But if you are stupid enough to think that we have the time, money, people, or resources to be sitting around spying on regular Americans, I can't help you. And again, there is no dropping of eaves here, just computers filtering through call records.

I heard someone raise an interesting point about this on some debate on FNC the other day... They complained of the ineffectiveness of such a program, which is a legitimate matter for debate, but said that the NSA should be focusing on suspected terrorists, not 300 million Americans. The other person in the debate left them with their mouth hanging open when they said "how do you identify suspects?" I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but that is exactly why this program is necessary.

Another interesting fact, as I've mentioned, was that this was just a rehash of a NY Times story from December being pulled out for no other reason than to railroad the nomination of General Hayden (former NSA head) to head the CIA. Not to mention the media has to create some bogus scandal at least once every week or two to hurt the President. Well many have been saying, not only was it an old story from December, but 60 Minutes did a story on it in 2000, under Clinton, and obviously before 9/11.

The 2000 story wasn't about this exactly, but it was about something for more "intrusive" and something that the privacy pimps could actually have been concerned about. It was about a vast spy program implimented under President Clinton that apparently monitored all electronic communications:

(Dec. 18, 2005 NewsMax article)

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

Knock Knock!
Who's There?
The ACLU?
Oh crap, really?!
Nah man, you're Democrats, carry on as you were

Need more? How about Clinton's vast spying programs, targeting political enemies? Front Page Magazine has the story in this article dated February 22, 2006. A few excerpts below:

In 1994, Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno launched infiltrators, wiretaps, mail monitoring, and a wide range of other spying activities in a massive coordinated effort that included the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Postal inspectors; the U.S. Marshalls Service; and other Federal and local law enforcement agencies.President Bill Clinton had acted decisively to fight what he and First Lady Hillary Clinton deemed the most dangerous terrorist threat facing America: conservative Christians.

This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force. According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Women’s Coalition for Life, Feminists for Life, Americans United for Life, the 600,000-member Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, the American Life League, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.

Read the rest of this very important and lengthy article here.

If you read that article, you'll certainly be shocked at all of the anti-free speech activities overseen by Clinton. What is particularly shocking is that what we read in this article sounds exactly like what the ACLU and Democrats scream is their big concerns over Bush administration policies, though they never cite any example of the NSA's data collection being used for political reasons. Here we have what Clinton did all laid out, but where's the MSM and where were they at the time? That is the outrage here. They don't report the actually shady things that Clinton was doing, while they blow up, misreport, spin and speculate about everything that President Bush is doing to protect us in the post 9/11 world. It's times like these I'm just infuriated at the state of the media in our country. It's almost physically sickening.

We have one other revelation today as well. You know how the original USA Today article that set this whole storm in motion said that Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth were all handing over call records to the NSA for this program? Well BellSouth is totally denying that now... I don't know what will come of this, but I suspect we'll hear more in the next couple days:

BellSouth said in a statement that it doesn't contract with the National Security Agency to supply customer calling information.

"As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA," it said Monday, "the company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA."

Asked to define "bulk customer calling records," Battcher said: "We are not providing any information to the NSA, period." He said he did not know whether BellSouth had a contract with the Department of Defense, which oversees the NSA.

read on here...

That's odd... So are we to believe that the NSA has obtained these somehow on their own? Or is this just some sort of clever wording, but BellSouth is actually providing the records through some other method? Or could it be that USA Today used Dan Rather's unimpeachable sources for the story? Or better yet, maybe they used Jason Leopold's sources.

Previous:
USA Today NSA Story A Rehash Of December 2005 NY Times Story
ACLU Data Collection! Selective Lefty Outrage At NSA?
Today's Bogus/Manufactured NSA Anti-Civil Rights Story

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

Yesterday we discussed the left side of the blogosphere's "Rove has been indicted" campaign, in which rumors initially flew Friday that Rove told the White House he was going to be indicted, and later that the indictments had come down on Saturday. These rumors were sparked by nothing more than two "articles" by Jason Leopold at the extreme left site TruthOut.org (here and here). I've become fond of calling them TruthOutOnALimb.org, because they've really gone out there on this one, and if they're wrong they've lost any credibility they may have had. I mean, these weren't some ambiguous articles that said "rumors are swirling in the beltway that Rove has been indicted"... The articles flat out stated it as fact, citing (you guessed it) unnamed "high level sources".

Well, as I mentioned later yesterday, Rove was in the news speaking confidently about the the upcoming 2006 midterm elections, but there was no news of these indictments. I noted in that post (via a hat tip from Hot Air) that other bloggers have all but debunked TruthOut's claims. I just checked that post out again and see AllahPundit has made a few updates, including a link to Johnny Dollar's Place, where you can listen to audio of Matt Drudge from Sunday's Drudge Radio, tearing Jason Leopold a new one.

Drudge partly takes it personally because breaking news on the internet is his life, and Jason Leopold is essentially hurting what is arguably an "industry" now, but flat out lying. And if he's not lying, the Vast Righ Wing Conspiracy strike again, by leaking false information just to make this guy look like the tool he is. I don't like having to eat my words though, so I'm still not going to go out on the limb and say that this guy is lying. As much as that seems like the case, he would have to be a complete idiot to run with this story, without any confirmation. Perhaps he is just that big of an idiot, but I'm just not willing to go that far just yet. As I said before, I give him the rest of the week to deliver.

Michelle Malkin is now weighing in on all of this, and points first to this New York Sun article. Rove's spokesman denies the rumors, and I could be wrong, but I think it would be stupid to lie about this if it were going to come out in a couple days:

A spokesman for a top White House aide under scrutiny in a criminal leak probe, Karl Rove, yesterday vigorously denied an Internet report that the political adviser to President Bush was told that he had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

"The story is a complete fabrication," the spokesman for Mr. Rove, Mark Corallo, told The New York Sun. "It is both malicious and disgraceful."

Michelle also directs our attention to this piece from the Detroit Free Press about how this internet rumor made it to the top of the Democratic party. Can you believe these clowns?

Was it an improbable outside-the-Beltway scoop on the ultimate inside-the-Beltway story? A criminal leak concerning the grand jury investigation of a criminal leak? Or just a red-hot rumor that caught fire in the dry tinder of too many trial attorneys?

Whatever it was, the news that White House adviser Karl Rove had been indicted for perjury electrified the 700 or so lawyers, judges and elected officials (including featured speakers Gov. Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.) gathered at the Dearborn Hyatt Regency for Saturday night's annual banquet of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.

Until they found out that maybe he hadn't been.

MTLA Vice President Robert Raitt was heading toward the podium to introduce Clinton, the banquet's keynote speaker, when Gerald Acker, a Southfield trial attorney and prominent Democratic fund-raiser, mentioned Rove's indictment.

Raitt didn't question the report. "Gerry is pretty connected," he explained Sunday, "and I thought, well, that'll get this crowd going."

A couple of minutes later, Raitt brought the heavily Democratic audience to its feet with the, um, news.

Among those who declined to join the standing ovation was Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Judge William Whitbeck, one of the few Republican officeholders in attendance. He said it struck him as odd that federal prosecutors had chosen to announce such a significant development on a Saturday night, but he left the banquet convinced that Rove's indictment was a fait accompli.

Twenty-four hours later, that was still in doubt. A few Democrat-friendly Web sites, including www. truthout.org, reported as early as Saturday afternoon that Rove's arrest was imminent. But by Sunday evening no reputable broadcast or print outlet had published the rumor.

Sunday, an embarrassed Acker told me he'd passed along the report of Rove's indictment after hearing it from Mark J. Bernstein, an Ann Arbor lawyer whose resume includes a stint in the Bill Clinton White House.

Bernstein told me he was meeting with Hillary Clinton and several members of her staff in a Hyatt Regency reception room early Saturday evening when "everybody began reaching for their BlackBerrys at roughly the same time."

He insisted that simultaneous e-mails reporting Rove's indictment were based on Internet speculation, not unauthorized disclosures of grand jury proceedings.

"Did anyone speak to the special prosecutor? No. Would I have published the report? No," Bernstein said Sunday. He learned the rumor had been disseminated only when his father, prominent personal injury lawyer Sam Bernstein, phoned from the banquet hall downstairs with an excited bulletin: "Karl Rove has just been indicted!"

Even if it had been true, look at how excited these weasels were! Failure and controversy by Republicans is the only way Democrats see victory. They know that the country doesn't agree with their ideas, so they just have to hammer Republicans through their media and hope to win by default. This is nothing new, and I say it all the time. But the image of all of these giddy Democrats drooling on their BlackBerrys with ear to ear grins just sickens me. I wish the Democrats took half as much pride, and put in half as much energy in to doing what is right for the country as they put in to attacking President Bush and the GOP.

Today's Vent with Michelle Malkin at HotAir.com, focuses on what has now been deemd "Rovemania". This is definitely the best "Vent" yet, make sure you check it out. Equally hilarious is Move On and Shut Up's sarcastic live blogging of the Rove indictment.

Others:
Seixon 1, Seixon 2, Seixon 3, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Stop the ACLU, Decision '08, Outside the Beltway, SuperFun PowerHour, Protein Wisdom, IMAO, The Sandbox, Suitably Flip, The Moderate Conservative, Freedom Watch, RightWing NutHouse, Expose the Left

Previous:
Rove Confident Midterms, No Mention Of Any Indictment.
Left Claims Karl Rove Indicted For Perjury And Lying To Investigators. Show Me The Money.

 

Karl Rove expressed confidence for the GOP in this year's elections, in a speech give at the American Enterprise Institute. There was no mention, however, of the indictments that TruthOut and the left have been claming came down this weekend.

Drudge Flash

ROVE: 'WE'RE IN A SOUR TIME. I READILY ADMIT IT.' THU May 15 2006 12:29:11 ET

Ater speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. on Monday Morning Karl Rove took questions:

QUESTION: It's clear that the position that the administration's in now is not where it would have liked to have been with a few months to go before the mid-term elections. I wonder if you could just say what has gone wrong and how do you turn things around before November.

ROVE: Look, we're in a sour time. I readily admit it.

I mean, being in the middle of a war where people turn on their television sets and see brave men and women dying is not something that makes people happy and optimistic and upbeat.

But I'm absolutely confident that -- I heard this same kind of language about the 2004 elections in roughly the March, April, May, June period of June 2004.

We're going to be just fine in the fall elections.

And we're going to be fine because we stand for things that are important. We stand for strong natural defense abroad and complete victory in the war on terrorism which involves victory in Iraq.

We stand for a strong national defense. We stand for economic policies that are pro-growth, involving tax cuts and free trade. We are strongly for fiscal restraint in the budget process.

And our opponents, at this point, stand for little or nothing, except mere obstructionism. Whether it is the nomination of superbly qualified men and women to the judiciary, or our policies to reauthorize the Patriot Act to keep America safe in a time of global terror, the other party seems to stand for little except obstructionism.

And ultimately, the American people are a center-right country, who, presented with a center-right party with center-right candidates, will vote center-right.

Developing...

 

Don't expect this to make as many headlines as the old "Bush Has Alienated U.S. From Rest Of World" stories.

AP via Fox News

WASHINGTON — The United States has decided to remove Libya from its list of state sponors of terrorism and to renew normal diplomatic ties, a State Department offical said Monday.

A formal announcement was expected later.

The move is a culmination of a process that began three years ago when Libya surprised the world by agreeing to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

There have been no normal relations with Libya since 1980. The State Department said the Libya for years was a major sponsor of international terrorism.

Libya was held responsible for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, which claimed 270 lives, most of them American.

But Libya has made a decisive move away from terrorism in recent years, officials said.

UPDATE

More from AP via USA Today (including the creepy photo at right, which can only be captioned with a school girl "tee-hee"):

The State Department was to announce that it will open an embassy in Libya, upgrading the current U.S. liaison office in Tripoli, said a department official.

Removing Libya from the list of countries the United States considers to be state sponsors of terrorism means a 45-day public comment period will begin on Monday, after which Libya would be removed from the list. The official described the plans on condition of anonymity because the official announcement was still pending.

The establishment of normal relations may have come sooner were it not for allegations that Gadhafi's regime was behind an attempt on the life of Saudi's Arabia's King Adbullah when he was crown prince several years ago.

read on...

I wanted to add that I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Libya, so I don't know whether or not this is a good move. The reason I posted it was to point out that Bush isn't always a "cowboy", but when he's being diplomatic, the media is less than enthusiastic about reporting it. It reminds me of what Laura Bush said the other day. She pointed out that while it seems like every day there's a "Bush Approval Hits New Low" headline, we didn't have these headlines when it was extremely high. I assume there must have been one or two at the time, but they weren't reporting his approval, seemingly around the clock the way they are now.

Anyway, we'll see what happens with this Libya move. I suspect this may have something to do with Iran, but who knows.

More:
Michelle Malkin, RussBlog, Solomonia, Hot Air, Right Voices, NinthState

 

So Friday night I decided to cruise by a couple of my favorite blogs to see if anyone had any new updates or anything I hadn't heard about, and the first thing that caught my attention was this short post from Allahpundit at Hot Air: Truthout.org: Rove has told WH he will be indicted.

Yeah, I know. I feel dirty linking them, but there’s really no downside. If they’re right, you heard it here first, and if they’re not, we get to mock them for being wrong.

Here’s the report.

The "report" is by far left outfit Truthout.org, and opens with this:

Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

read on...

I feel the same way as Allahpundit. I don't know if it's right, but here's the information, you can make what you will of it. But if they're wrong, boy do they deserve a thorough trashing.

Again, that was Friday night, so my assumption was that if these Truthout jokers got the info, and the story is true, then certainly the leakers would be leaking to others as well and it would be known throughout all of the media by Saturday night. Seeing as it's now early Monday morning, that was not the case. So while we all still "wait and see", I've got to question the credibility here. Again, why would they be the only ones leaked to?

Of course that Friday post claimed that Rove had warned the White House that he would be indicted. TruthOut (again, by themselves) posted on Saturday that the indictments had been served! Their post, unde the headline: Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators begins:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

read on...

So again, no confirmation from any other media about getting any similar leaks. Just this web site that I assume is unknown to virtually any non-blogger or far lefty. So I'll still be open to the possiblity that they were leaked to, but question why if that's true, that being such small timers, that anyone would choose to leak to them only?

So Allahpundit tossed up his own quick post to notify the masses that Truth(maybe)Out is now claiming that indictments have been brought down, and links to Rick Moran's round-up which all but seems to debunk TruthOut's claims. This isn't with absolute certainty, but it seems just short of it. Check it out now.

Rick links to an American Thinker piece by Clarice Feldman, that argues not only that Rove was probably not indicted, but that the case against libby may be falling apart. Rick says that Clarice has been spot on in Plamegate so far, and I'll have to take his word on it and not pretend to have been following Clarice's coverage.

Rick also links to a piece by the National Review's Byron York that makes an even more convincing case, that Rove hasn't been indicted.

So did I. I talked with Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me the story was completely baseless. Part of our conversation:

Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
No.
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
No.
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
No.

So there seems to be nothing to the story, certainly nothing which any other reporter has seen fit to report. Which raises a question: What is going on here? The journalists who checked out the story, quite properly, did not repeat Leopold's bad information. But for some media blogger out there, it might be reasonable to ask: Where are these reports coming from?

read the rest...

Hmm... Seems that TruthOut might change their name to TruthOut..OnALimb, because if they are totally wrong here, it's going to look pretty bad, especially after all of the left's minions ran with the story, despite a lack of any confirmation.

Check out the Yahoo! and Google blog search results for 'rove indicted'. Also, check out this Technorati search on the same term.

It's hard to say what search results you'll see because the left has been running wild with this one, so posts continue to roll in ever since TruthOut started this whole thing on Friday. They all posted without a single confirmation from anyone. I'm happy to see a question mark in some post titles that say "Karl Rove Indicted?", but those with question marks are few and far between. I'm expecting Dan Rather to break in on TV with a special report: "I was down at the pond looking for a frog with side pockets to come down to the shooting range with me, when one of my unimpeachable sources told me that Karl Rove has been indicted. If this turns out that this source lied after a few weeks of me denying it, I'll then still have to ask whether the information was still true.. Stay tuned."

Again, I have no inside information here, but I'm not claiming to. I'm just saying that if these TruthOut folks don't deliver in one week or less, this political pizza is going straight to their thighs. I'm sorry, I don't even know what that's suppost to mean, it just came out. What I meant to say is that if this turns out to not be true, TruthOut and all of their followers deserve an internet beating from the rest of us in the blogosphere.

More:
Seixon, Espella Humanzee, Decision '08, Chickenhawk Express, The Florida Masochist, Outside the Beltway, Superfun Powerhour

 

(***SCROLL FOR WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE REAL STORY***)

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - A second round of DNA testing in the Duke University lacrosse rape case came back with the same result as the first - no conclusive match to any member of the team, defense attorneys said Friday.

Attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents a team captain who has not been charged, said the tests showed genetic material from a "single male source" was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players.

"In other words, it appears this woman had sex with a male," said Cheshire, who spoke at a news conference with other defense attorneys in the case. "It also appears with certainty it wasn't a Duke lacrosse player."

Cheshire said the testing did find some genetic material from several people on a plastic fingernail found in a bathroom trash can of the house where the team held the March 13 party. He said some of that material had the "same characteristics" - a link short of a conclusive match - to some of the players, but not the two who have charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual assault.

More...

The prosecution's case looks weaker by the day. This second DNA test, showing no link to the Duke Lacrosse team, comes just days after we learned that the stripper originally claimed that she was raped by 20 of the players, and weeks after we saw a few photos that also hurt the prosecution and help the defense.

Anyway, while I hate these court case stories becaues I find them sooooo boring, this one is a little interesting because it seems more and more likely that these are false accusations, and innocent guys are being smeared. I can't stand the "missing blond girl of the week" stories, or the hollywood court cases... But this one has managed to grab my attention a little. I can't stand watching/listening to constant coverage, but when these developments break, I do take notice.

MY GUESS ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

So let's examine what we know and/or are hearing.... A 911 call was placed that night from a black girl that claimed her and her black friend were walking by a house where a bunch of white guys were yelling out the "N word" at them. I recall the tape being played on TV in the early days of this investigation and finding it a little odd that the girl didn't really sound that upset, more like a "I'm gonna get these guys in trouble" sort of tone... and why would you call 911 about this, especially when they she didn't sound like she felt threatened at all.

In the early days, we heard that this call was made from these random girls, on the same night that a black stripper claims to have been raped in the house where the girls who said men yelled the "N word" at them, were walking by. At that point, these were supposedly separate incidents, and instantly "Duke has race issues!" For a few days, these guys were smeared relentlessly in the media

Now, I don't remember the chronological order here, but as the days rolled on we learn that there were two strippers at the party who didn't know eachother before that night. We learned later that the girl who called 911 over supposedly being called names, wasn't just a passerby, but was the second stripper.

Apparently the accuser stripper was wasted and the second one who didn't know her, didn't know what to do with her, so she wound up driving to a Kroger parking lot and passing off responsibility to a security guard. The police were called and upon arrival, found the accuser passed out, apparently drunk. These were facts that came out later, after we had already heard the accusations and a medical exam that apparently turned up injuries "consistent with rape".

As the story unfolded we heard that the second stripper didn't witness any rape and didn't think it happened. Later she called a PR firm, wondering how she could use this to personally benefit herself while she's in the limelight. As quick as you could say "Blue Devils", she changed her mind and believed the accuser who she doesn't know and saw no evidence of a rape, and apparently wasn't told by the accuser that she was raped that night. This looks especially bad for the prosecution when we see pictures of the smiling accuser leaving the house.

Somehow the prosecutor was able to indict two of the Duke players shortly before or after (I can't remember, but it's not that important) DNA tests came back, showing no link to the players. This doesn't deter the prosecutor who insists (seemingly without a shred of evidence) that the to players, and one more, did rape the women. Well, a second DNA test has come back negative as well, making his weak case even weaker. All he's going on at this point is the strippers fake fingernails that the players gave to the police, after having cleaned up and placed them in their trash can after the party. These fingernails share the "same characteristics" as the DNA of some of the players, but not the two who've been indicted. Is it that surprising that there would be traces of DNA in a bathroom trash can (keeping in mind that DNA isn't stricly obtained from semen)?

Oh, did I mention that one of the two accused players has what seems to be a rock solid alibi? ATM reciepts and photos, testimony of his cab driver, etc. Of course their is also the question of why these guys would want to rape a nasty stripper (let's face it, strippers are nasty), when they could arguable have their pick of the litter of hot Duke girls? I know that's not an argument you make in court, but seriously think about it. Do you think, despite how spoiled these kids are, that they are stupid enough to rape a stripper and think they'd get away with it, as opposed to pick up all the hot classy, and equally spoiled girls they go to school with? It just doesn't wash in my mind.

Another factor in this case is the fact that the woman accused 3 men of raping her once in the past, but there was never a case because she chose not to pursue it. Who know what happened there, but it's obvious there has been a lot of lying on the prosecution side here. A lot of claims that haven't been supported by DNA tests. The fact that the 911 call was made by the strippers about being called racial epithets, not passers by as they had claimed to be. The accuser seems to be having a good time in the party photos. The photos support the players' accounts. The second stripper flip-flopping. A passed out drunk accuser... On and on, you get the picture.

Now, are you ready for what I think really happened that night. I don't know that the "real" story will ever come out, but if it does, I think it will be very much like this:

These Duke lacrosse players had a party and ordered two strippers. The strippers showed up and did their thing. One was drunk when she showed up, and got even drunker there. The girls, for whatever reason thought they were entitled to more money than they were paid and thought that they'd get back at the guys by pulling something that isn't much more than a prank by calling 911, essentially forcing a visit from police to the house to enquire about the men shouting racists remarks from the home.

Stripper two (non-accuser), probably thought this little prank would be funny or whatever, and was going to leave it at that. Stripper one (accuser) was out of her mind drunk and at some point made the accusation of rape. Before she knew it she was tied up in an investigation that quickly hit the media and she couldn't take it back because she would have been nailed in the press. As the investigation rolled on, despite still wanting to get out of it, it became harder and harder by the day. (In fact we know, I believe by comments her father made, that she really doesn't want to pursue this).

So basically, I think it was a stupid disagreement that got blown up by one drunk stripper and this liberal prosecutor, in the middle of an election, knew he'd get some attention so he pushed the accuser on this and jumped in front of cameras as quick as he could. In his mind, he probably knows he's screwed now, but he stuck his neck out so far on no evidence, he can't really go back on it now, after all the things he's said.

I believe that all of that is a likely scenario for what happened that night. The only thing I think might be different, is that the accuser was also an "escort" (hooker). The morally corrupt (as are most in our generation) players thought it would be funny to pay an escort to "do stuff". Perhaps it was a joke on a virgin member of the team, who knows. But maybe in her drunken stuper a fight ensued when she insisted on more money than they were willing to pay, and they made the girls leave.

So like I said, this seems to be a bit of "pay back" to the players that got out of hand, and this politically minded, agressive prosecutor caused a rapid snowball before the baseless accusations could be taken back.

I believe that in the end, charges will be dropped and we may not even see civil trials as we've heard many predict, because this accuser doesn't want to be "out there", she just wants this to all disappear.

 

I'm a little confused about this story, because I was told that Republicans are all a bunch of racist rich white guys. You know Democrats are shameless panderers the party for "the black man" who's goal it is to get votes by making promise after promise, but keeping minorities poor so they can continue the promises to score votes in the next election help out the little guy, so this Newsday story couldn't possibly be true, could it?

With a record of calling minorities inferior by lowering standards and pushing affirmative action leveling the playing field and throwing oreos and racial epithets, as well as creating racist photoshops welcoming the debate from black Republicans and through the leadership of people like former Ku Klux Klan member civil rights activist Robert Byrd, how could anyone believe that there are any Democrat racists, especially when we know that only Republicans are racists. I demand a retraction Newsday!

Okay, now that I've run out of sarcasm, here's the deal... A Democratic candidate for Alabama attorney general is denying the holocaust and prancing around the country, speaking for racist organizations. And here's the real shocker..... He's an atheist!!!

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A Democratic candidate for Alabama attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend in New Jersey to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

Give us a history lesson Mr. Darby

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus.

Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

Darby said he will speak Saturday near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group's Internet site.

"It's time to stop pushing down the white man. We've been discriminated against too long," Darby said in the interview.

You know, I don't like programs that discriminate against whites by "level the playing field" and the fact that there are racial quotas to be met in many workplaces. All of these kinds of activities are racist (not "reverse" racism), against whites. Racism, is racism. Further, they're racist againts the blacks and minorities they claim to be on the side of. Democrats are in favor of lowering education standards to help minorities get through school. They're all about giving them an edge for getting in to college (quit often for free) when more qualified whites are getting bumped. These and related platforms are racist in that they tell minorities "you're to dumb or incapable to make things happen for yourself, so we're going to hand everything to you... Vot fore me!"

While I believe all of what I just said, I don't think anyone is "pushing down the white man" as this Democrat says. He's clearly an off the wall racist. My view that I share with many conservatives, is a difference of policy opinion. We think you should work hard to achieve goals, not have the government hold your hand and tell you that you need them. But that's hardly the same as essentially shouting "white power" like this guy.

Let's learn a little more about Darby. You know, what really makes him tick:

Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center and a longtime supporter of separation of church and state, said he has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches.

Tyson said aside from his views on race and the Holocaust, Darby also has publicly advocated legalizing drugs and shooting all illegal immigrants.

Legalizing drugs has been a liberal platform for some time, but shooting illegals? Wow, again, aren't Republicans who want to secure the border the racists? I'm curious why none of the massive illegal immigrant protests haven't shown up at his door. Oh yeah, because he has a big blue "D" on his mailbox.

Anyway, I'm curious. Why aren't headlines reading "Duo Denies Holocaust Happened", in reference to this guy and Iranian President Ahmadinejad? That's a ridiculous suggestion, isn't it liberals? Well they did it when they spun Pat Robertson's words about Ariel Sharon's health to something that still didn't closely match Ahmadinejad's comments. Articles were all about this "duo" launching attacks on Sharon. See this post for all the background you need.

At the time the media was obsessed with comparing Pat Robertson to Ahmadinejad, I was curious why they didn't call Kerry and Bin Laden a "duo". Some of the comments from those two men have been almost identical, especially when compared with the ridiculous pairing of unrelated comments of Robertson and Ahmadinejad. Not to mention the fact that everytime a terrorist tape gets released, it's like they downloaded the DNC talking points right in to their teleprompter.

For more fun with "Democrats emulating terrorists" (or visa versa), check out this video (vie Expose the Left) of MSNBC's Scarborough and Carlson laying it all out for you. You could also play my (joke) match game "who said it", or watch "The Odd Couple".

We could get in to a whole historical thing about who's the real racists, who was, who still is, etc. But the main angle I wanted to go here was the media double standard. Why isn't this the same type of headline news? Robertson isn't even an elected official or running for office, this guy is! Where's his "duo" headlines?

***UPDATE***
I forgot to add this little point earlier. This guy is an atheist, right? Is it then safe to assume that he subscribes to the theory of evolution? Why then is he campainging for a job that deals with the law? Not get what I'm driving at? Our laws, like it or not, are loosely and originally based on the 10 commandments. Even if you somehow were to disagree, you'd have to agree that "law" is unique to human beings. But as an atheist and evolutionist (again that part is my assumption) you believe we are simply a more highly evolved animal. Why then do we have laws? Why can't we run around humping people's legs? Why can't we steal, kill people, or rape without repercussions? After all, we're just animals, and have no accountability to God, right?

It is clear that morals, and the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong is uniquely human, and clearly a gift from God. Either that or I missed the latest episode of "Judge Judy: Chimp Edition". The point is, why am I accountable to society (if we are to accept evolution)? I'm just an animal, I should be able to satisfy my primal urges, whatever they may be, and no one should get in my way, unless their own urge happens to be to kill or cause harm to me. Laws of the jungle, right?

The point is, how can we put people in a position that is based all around legal matters, when his own beliefs essentially tell him that there is no right and wrong. Yeah, he can claim to want to uphold the law. But why? What if I don't like that law? I'm an animal without morals who doesn't answer to some higher power, so why should any laws bind me?

 

(h/t Drudge)

AP via Breitbart

The U.N. atomic agency has found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday. The finding added to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade _ the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Developing...

 

As always the news that the economy roars on is "unexpected".

WASHINGTON - The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly declined in March for a second consecutive month, something that hasn't happened in more than two years. The improvement reflected record U.S. exports and a big drop in the country's foreign oil bill.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that the gap between what the country sells abroad and what it imports narrowed to $62 billion in March, the smallest deficit in seven months. It was a 5.5 percent improvement from February's $65.6 billion deficit which in turn had fallen from the all-time high of $68.6 billion set in January.

more....

See more RightWinged coverage of the economy and it's "unexpected" growth in my "economy" category.

 

I'm going to add this as an update to my post on White House and Pentagon talks of using military on the border, but thought it deserved it's own post as well

MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - President Bush will address the nation about the immigration situation on Monday night as Senate passage of sweeping legislation is virtually assured by Memorial Day.

This ought to be interesting.

The story goes on to give a repeat of all what we already know and hear day in and day out, but the only new information was about President Bush's plans to address the nation. Let's hope it's not another amnesty "path to citizenship" type speech, and that he is finally getting tough, as it appears may be the case, again with talks of using military on the border. Again though, we do have to do something about the 11-12 million illegals already here, and it's illogical to think we could deport them or get them to willingly go home and go through the legal process.

Ideas float around in my head about giving them a "legal" status, but not citizenship. These "legal" workers, would then have to carry identification, pay the fines and learn English like we've heard in other proposed plans. But then they would be forced to pay taxes (this would come as a result of cracking down on businesses hiring illegals). Once set up to pay taxes, they would have to pay an extra say 5-15% "alien" tax. They would also never be elligable to receive social security, but they would absolutely pay in to it.

Is that harsh libs? Cruel? Do you think these people would rather go back to Mexico? They risk their lives getting here, many of them try many times before actually getting here. Of course they get here and protest laws that we already aren't enforcing, instead of directing their anger at their own crappy country.

Anyway, my ideas aren't a "plan", just some off the top of my head thoughts.

***UPDATE***
Hot Air thinks that the President will discuss possible use of military on the border. I'm not sure he will unless he's really going to start getting tough, because you know the race card players will be all over it if he starts publicly pumping the idea in a speech to the nation.

Previous:
BREAKING: White House & Pentagon Discuss Using Military On The Border... Finally!
"Stop The Invasion" Border Security Billboards Hit Texas
Doing What The Feds Won't, Arizona County Cracks Down On Illegals.
A Day Without An Illegal Immigrant? We Can Only Hope...
California Senate Votes To Support May 1 Illegal Immigrant / Anti-American Boycott Day
Illegals Show Love For America By Trying To "Dent" Economy
"National Illegal Alien Day" Roundup
UPDATE: More From Sunday's Illegal Immigrant Protest In Dallas
National Illegal Alien Day Is Here!!! Work Walk Outs And American Boycotts?

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

(h/t Drudge)

The media is still buzzing, and will continue to buzz, over the recently leaked NSA phone call data collection program, until they're able to create a new bogus scandal to attack the president with.

What we all learned over the past few days that most of the nation's major phone companies are giving data on their customers' phone calls to the NSA to help fight terrorism. This has nothing to do with monitoring content of calls, the NSA is just searching for patterns of calls, and who's calling who. Despite this information the media has continued deceptively to use the word "monitoring" in their headlines and the left is predictably screaming "invasion of privacy". As usual, the ACLU is leading the privacy pack, but we learned yesterday that they are secretly collecting data on their members for fund-raising purposes! Where's the lefty outrage about that?

Before I tell you about the latest development, be sure you're up to date by reading my previous posts, here and here.

Now the one thing I hadn't mentioned is that Democrats and Republicans in both houses have been briefed about this program, so this isn't some sort of shock that they should pretend to be outraged about, simply because USA Today put this article out in perfect time to hurt the nomination of General Hayden for the new CIA chief position. Hayden is the former head of the NSA. This morning Fox & Friends went as far as to say that the program is really just an extension of the old Project Echelon, and if you read about Echelon, that seems to be the case.

That all said, today we learn that the NY Times already covered this story.... LAST DECEMBER!

This lengthy NY Times piece, dated December 24, 2005, basically reported all of what yesterday's USA Today reported, if not more. So the question you have to ask is: "Why did USA Today treat this like some sort of exclusive story they broke?" Of course we know the answer to that question, again, it's because former NSA head General Hayden was just nominated for the top position at the CIA, and clearly some axe grinders at the NSA (in classic liberal fashion) have decided, once again, to put politics before national security.

I won't bore you with a bunch of boring excerpts from the Times article, since it's basically all what you just read in the USA Today yesterday, but here's a taste:

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry who have knowledge of parts of the program say the N.S.A. has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages. Calls to and from Afghanistan, for instance, are known to have been of particular interest to the N.S.A. since the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.

Again, this is the same story, but the point is that the NY Times already reported this 5 months ago!!! The only thing I can see that USA Today added was the information about the specific phone companies who are passing along the data to the NSA. This hasn't stopped nervous nelly politicians from both sides of the aisle in Washington from expressing shock and outrage.

Before we learned about this new twist, Newt Gingrich joined the fellas at Hannity & Colmes for a chat about this no longer secret program. There was a lot of joking about Newt agreeing more with Alan about this one, but when you break it down, Newt agreed with the program and it's motives, but he feels that the administration needs to be more honest and upfront about it. I would say that's a reasonable request except for the fact that the NSA probably wants the program to be secret for a reason: If the program becomes public (as it now has thanks to those whistleblowers leakers) the terrorist know one way that we're trying to track them. This will cause them to change methods of communication, effectively leaving us scrambling to figure out new ways to find these people before they attack us.

Hopefully we find out who these leakers are so we can thank them for putting us all in greater danger, simply for their own political motivations. I know lefties "your privacy is under attack", right? Please tell me how this hurts you? Please tell me that you truly believe that out of the billions of calls being made and added to some super computer, the NSA has sent an actual human in to pull your calls and passed the information along to Rove, Cheney and Bush who are plotting how to take you down. They see all those calls that you made to your parents for extra weed money since you've decided to stay in college for a few more years rather than get a job, and boy are they pissed! Keep telling yourselves it's true, that the NSA has the time, money, and resources to pay attention to what you're doing unless you've been making repeated calls to a phone number that's linked to an address that simply reads: 123 Cave Rd., Cave, Afghanistan

***UPDATE***
s
I just found this great San Francisco Chronical article that explains how this NSA "data mining" program works, and makes it more clear what a joke it is to be outraged over trumped up privacy issues. For starters:

Somewhere in America, powerful computers ingest crumbs of data about your personal life. Your income level. The kind of car you drive. Your home address. Your credit rating. All input, assimilated and analyzed at lightning speed.

The result: A piece of paper arrives in your mailbox offering you 10 percent off an oil change at your local service station.

That, in a nutshell, is data mining as practiced for more than a decade by companies around the world to target current and potential customers. The methods have changed since the old days of reverse telephone directories and mailing lists, but the basic objective is the same. And data mining of some type, experts agree, is almost certainly what is behind the National Security Agency's reportedly successful efforts to obtain the phone records of tens of millions of Americans from private telecommunications companies.

As I mentioned ealier, the ACLU, leader of the outraged, is doing this for fundraising purposes and we aren't hearing a peep from the left.

More from the San Francisco Chronicle, on tracking our digital footprints:

"Data mining is going through data from the past, historical data, and predicting what is likely to happen in the future based on patterns in the data," said Ken Bendix, president of North American operations at KXEN Inc., a company headquartered in San Francisco that develops data mining software for business applications.

It is used by credit card companies to spot spending patterns that suggest a card has been stolen and by marketing companies who use enormous databases to target advertising.

The technique has been gaining in popularity in the private sector thanks to advancements in computing technology and the mathematics underlying the software, Bendix said.

"The data is very rarely at the individual level," Bendix said. "When people are doing these data mining analyses, they don't care that you are you. They don't care what your name is or what your social security number is. All they care about is what group you fit into and how you relate to everybody else out there."

More on the history and theory behond this program (of course before it was compromised, and terrorists have now been tipped off)

The program, the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser John Poindexter, collapsed under public and political criticism in 2003. But the idea lived on, said Forno, who lectured on information warfare at the National Defense University from 2001 to 2003 and participated in the 2000 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Information Security Education Research Project.

"TIA may have died on paper," he said. "But it got parceled out to various other agencies, including the NSA."

The NSA's interest in what is essentially copies of tens of millions of old phone bills is not hard to understand, Forno and other analysts said.

In theory, a powerful computer could process all those numbers and find a link between a phone in, say, Iowa to a phone in an al Qaeda training camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- even by way of dozens of other phones, linkages far too scattered for a human eye to notice. And the search wouldn't necessarily stop there.

"You have these phone numbers, you might also at a minimum run them against credit reporting companies," Forno said. "Local state DMV records. Tax records. Business employment records. All those other resources might help you narrow down your search."

While most of the criticism we see and hear is about privacy concerns, but it seems that there might be legitimate criticism over how useful the program might actually be.

But while the program's defenders insist it is a crucial instrument in the U.S. war on terror, some private security experts question its usefulness.

"We're looking for a needle in a haystack," said Bruce Schneier, a security technologist and chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. in Mountain View. "Dumping more hay on the pile doesn't necessarily get you anywhere."

Again, this may be a legitimate criticism, but shouldn't we encourage our government to at least do everything they can, in hopes that they might find that needle in a haystack? Or should we just assume we won't find anything and let those needles hijack planes and fly them in to buildings, killing thousands of people? Allah-hu-haystack!

Read the entire article here...

***UPDATE***
Michelle Malkin remarks on a Washington Post poll, showing that Americans support the NSA's efforts. Michelle also has a column in the NY Post today in which she thanks the NSA for actually doing their job. In reading it I become annoyed again at the fact that the left is upset over this non-issue, while they aren't outraged at the illegally leaked information that compromises security, and again, they aren't mad at the heros of the "privacy" movement, the ACLU, for data mining for fund-raising purposes.

Others (some of these are from yesterday, I'll try to update as I come across new posts):
Others:
Hot Air, The Moderate Voice, Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Confederate Yankee, Outside the Beltway, AJ Strata, Rick Moran, Macsmind, Michelle Malkin, The Sandbox, Flopping Aces, Ninth State, Sensible Mom, Nathan Branfield, OKIE on the LAM, The View From North Central Idaho, GroupIntel, The Unalienable Right, Flap's Blog, Don't Go Into The Light, Donkey Stomp, Independent Conservative, Iowa Voice, Wizbang, Left Wing = Hate, Amber, Small Town Veteran, Joust the Facts, A Lady's Ruminations, Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin 1, Michelle Malkin 2, Michelle Malkin 3, Chickenhawk Express, Riehl World View 1, Riehl World View 2, A Blog For All, The Political Pit Bull, Blogs For Bush, UrbanGrounds, Captain's Quarters

 

***UPDATE***
President to addres the nation on immigration Monday.

***SCROLL FOR MORE UPDATES***

Finally, discussion of real solutions to the root of the problem. Yes, the matter of the 11-12 million illegals already here is an important one, but isn't border security infinitely more important? A secure border would stop the flow while we debate what to do with the millions already here, and I think anyone with an ounce of sense realizes we could never deporpt all of them. So I don't want it to sound like I'm ignoring the illegal aliens who have already invaded, but I'm more more about hammering home the importance of border security, and it would seem that there is a glimmer of hope!

It would seem that either the bricks have made an impact, or perhaps it's Bill O'Reilly repeating for years:

You guys could stop this immediately if you put the National Guard (search) on the border to back up the border patrol.

Whatever happened, the Pentagon and White House are considering this type of necessary action... We can only hope there are also discussions about a wall and/or fence. The AP by way of CNN.com covers this latest development.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Faced with growing pressure from Southern states, the Bush administration wants the military to come up with ideas to help solve security problems along the U.S. border with Mexico.

In back-to-back moves this week, the Pentagon began exploring ways to lend support at the Southern border, while the House on Thursday voted to allow the Homeland Security Department in limited cases to use soldiers in that region.

At the Pentagon, Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, asked officials to offer options for the use of military resources and troops -- particularly the National Guard -- along the border with Mexico, according to defense officials familiar with the discussions.

Looks like "Bush's Brain", Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this:

Southern lawmakers met this week with White House strategist Karl Rove for a discussion that included making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border control.

"The Texas delegation is very concerned about the border and are pushing urgency," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who joined other Texas Republicans in a meeting with Rove this week. He said Rove was "very forthright" about border projects that Homeland Security is starting up, its current projects and what the needs are.

Rep. Ken Marchant, R-Texas, who also attended the meeting, said the lawmakers left "very encouraged."

Let's hope they are enouraged for good reason, and that the White House is truly serious about this. I suspect this is the case, simply because some of the sources for this article are unnamed, and this isn't a message or part of any plan we've heard publicly from President Bush or anyone in the administration.

Anyway, you get the gist. The rest of the article just talks about the use of military in the homeland, who makes the calls, who controls the National Guard in certain situations, what brances of the military can be used for law enforcement and when, etc. Important stuff, but the important development here is the discussions about getting military to help secure the border. Cross your fingers that this is part of what they call the president's "third term" strategy.

As President Bush said at the White House Correspondents' dinner, "I survived the White House shake-up". New Press Secretary Tony Snow seems to be coming out swinging, and perhaps some of the other resignations and new hires can bring around some change the base has been begging for.

Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic about this.

***UPDATE***
Others:
Hot Air, The Sandbox, Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Superfun Powerhour

Previous:
"Stop The Invasion" Border Security Billboards Hit Texas
Doing What The Feds Won't, Arizona County Cracks Down On Illegals.
A Day Without An Illegal Immigrant? We Can Only Hope...
California Senate Votes To Support May 1 Illegal Immigrant / Anti-American Boycott Day
Illegals Show Love For America By Trying To "Dent" Economy
"National Illegal Alien Day" Roundup
UPDATE: More From Sunday's Illegal Immigrant Protest In Dallas
National Illegal Alien Day Is Here!!! Work Walk Outs And American Boycotts?
Hillary Clinton's Crazy Comparison Of The Day! Howard Dean's Got Some Competition!
Why Are McCain And Hillary Clinton Holding Hands With ILLEGAL Immigrants?!
Illegal Aliens Hold Massive Protest In Chicago.
Mexico: "Let my people...in" - Demanding More Immigration!?

 

(h/t Stop the ACLU)

Of course everyone is talking about the latest non"scandal" by the media, over the NSA obtaining data collection on phone calls (numbers seeking patterns, not content). I have an extensive post up about this from earlier, but I thought the latest development deserved it's own post. Before I get to the latest development, I have to point out again that there is really nothing that can be done with this information unless your records show you're constantly calling a cell phone that's located in a cave in Afghanistan.. then maybe you should be a little concerned. But even still, what makes you liberals think that the NSA has the time, money, or resources to pay attention to you?

Now you're not going to believe the latest. You know the "civil liberties" group the ACLU? You know, the creeps who come out to oppose anything traditional or right in the world, but instead support pedophile groups like NAMBLA, vicious people who protest at soldiers' funerals, the KKK, etc. etc. etc. This group is arguably more evil than the United Nations, but that's another story.

Anyway, as you probably are aware, the ACLU is one of these groups that cries foul any time President Bush takes action to protect us. Today was no exception, and they're "demanding" a Congressional Investigation. Read up at the ACLU's own page.

What's interesting this time is that the ACLU is using shady data collection methods themselves, and they're doing it for fund-raising, not national security. (h/t Stop the ACLU)

From the San Francisco Gate

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Again this isn't even national security, it's fund-raising!... Should we expect outrage from the usual suspects? Don't count on it.

The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

What's new about that? Everytime a far left group gets caught doing something stupid, they quickly run to change their web site. This is just how the dishonest left operates.

Read on...

Anyway, the main point is the selective outrage from the left and the media. Don't expect a huge front page USA Today story on this tomorrow, and of course it won't be a lead story on all the news programs. And don't expect the liberal blogs to hammer the ACLU either. They'll just turn their back and pretend they never heard about this, until the next time some child molester needs his "free speech" defending, and they'll once again call on the heroic ACLU.

 

Earlier I told you about Maricopa County, AZ cracking down on illegals because the federal government won't. Arizona has passed a state law that mirrors a federal law already on the books but not being enforced, so the sheriff and posses are getting it done themselves.

Well, only a few hours later we learn of another campaign by "the people". This was isn't so much action, as it is sending a message. What message? "Stop the Invasion" on giant billboards.

Some excerpts from the Dallas / Ft. Worth's CBS 11 story:

(CBS 11 News) DALLAS Conservatives are firing back at those who support amnesty and a guest worker program for illegal immigrants. Their latest weapon is a billboard located on Stemmons Freeway in Dallas.

If you work near downtown Dallas it'll be hard to miss one billboard during your commute.

Dallas is the first city to get one, but there are plans to put these signs up from California to Florida.

"Stop the Invasion" is a reference to the massive influx of immigrants who enter the United States illegally.

“We must stop the invasion. We cannot have amnesty because amnesty is in essence a surrender to the invasion,” said Steve Elliott, grassfire.org.

Read on...

As you just read, this is billboard campaign is an undertaking of GrassFire.org. Head over to their web site now to learn more about this group and how you can help fight the good fight on this, and other issues. Even swing by just to sign a few petitions if you'd like.

GrassFire's site also has a larger photo of the Dallas billboard, in addition to information on similar billboards in other major cities coming soon. See this news release for more information on this growing campaign:

Dallas, Texas. Grassfire.org President Steve Elliott announced today at the site of the first “Stop The Invasion” billboard in Dallas, Texas, that the campaign is quickly expanding into Los Angeles, California, Phoenix, Arizona, Atlanta, Georgia, and South Florida. “Overwhelming grassroots support is fueling this aggressive expansion,” says Elliott. “Americans are eager to get this message out and we are moving quickly to place these new billboards as soon as next week.”

The idea of going across the nation with “Stop The Invasion” campaign is the result of citizen support for the billboards, says Elliott. “These billboards are being sponsored literally one square foot at a time by citizens across the nation who are frustrated and angered by the illegal alien protests and Senate talk of amnesty,” says Elliott. “We will expand as fast and as far as the American people want, taking a simple message to our highways and to Congress -- Stop The Invasion.”

Grassfire’s Atlanta and Ft. Lauderdale-Miami billboards will debut next week, with final details on Los Angeles and Phoenix still being arranged. With a Senate amnesty bill possibly to be voted on before the Memorial Day recess, Elliott says it is important to get the message out as quickly as possible. “A groundswell of opposition to amnesty is building,” says Elliot. “Senators who ignore the will of American citizens and instead listen to the shouts of illegal rights protestors do so at their own electoral risk.”

In addition to the billboards, Grassfire.org -- a national issues advocacy organization with one million active team members -- has also presented more than 300,000 “Secure Our Borders” petitions to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other key members of Congress. Grassfire team members have also delivered over 290,000 faxes and phone calls on this issue.

Like the Send-A-Brick Project, this is a great way to send Washington a message, but I fear they are still too worried about the votes of America's "largets minority". These are great don't get me wrong, but I think massive anti-illegal protests are the only way to get the media attention, and in turn, Washington's attention... the same way the illegal protests did. But don't stop guys, these campaigns are great in spreading the message and letting people know that they aren't the only ones who want the border secured.

 

***UPDATE - SCROLL FOR MORE OF TODAY'S LEFTY MEDIA***

While I normally don't like to copy an entire article or column, I think I will in this case because trying to add much to this would only take away from what awesome news it is, and how out of the ordinary it seems for a White House Press Secretary, especially a brand new one! Anyway, go ahead Tony, it's about time someone in the administration lashed out a bit... although I think we can all agree that this is still relatively mild, and you could really give it to them if you wanted to be known for this sort of thing.

Bill Sammon for The Examiner writes:

WASHINGTON - New White House Press Secretary Tony Snow is starting off in a combative mode against the press by issuing detailed rebuttals to what he considers unfair coverage of Bush.

“The New York Times continues to ignore America’s economic progress,” blared the headline of an e-mail sent to reporters Wednesday by the White House press office.

Minutes earlier, another e-mail blasted CBS News, which has had an unusually rocky relationship with the White House since 2004, when CBS aired what turned out to be forged documents in a failed effort to question the president’s military service.

“CBS News misleadingly reports that only 8 million seniors have signed up for Medicare prescription drug coverage,” Wednesday’s missive said. “But 37 million seniors have coverage.” On Tuesday, the White House railed against “USA Today’s misleading Medicare story.”

“USA Today claims ‘poor, often minority’ Medicare beneficiaries are not enrolling in Medicare drug coverage,” the press office complained. “But by April, more than 70 percent of eligible African Americans, more than 70 percent of eligible Hispanics, and more than 75 percent of eligible Asian Americans are enrolled or have retiree drug coverage.”

White House sources said Snow, who started on the job Monday and has yet to give his first public press briefing, is determined to aggressively counter what the administration considers unfair assertions in both news and editorials about Bush. At the same time, he is eager to make the notoriously secretive administration more accessible to the press.

Can you believe that!? He even calls some of the offenders out by name! The vultures are going to be nuts when he first faces off with them!

***UPDATE***
Expose the Left has video and details about a Good Morning America segment in which Kate Snow ran around a mall, waving a $20 bill in the faces of people who make modest incomes telling them that it's how much they'll get under a Bush tax cut, while rich people will get $82,000.

What Kate Snow failed to do was tell these people was that if they pay anything in taxes, the percentage of their income is a fraction of the percentage of the income paid by a "rich" guy. I won't explain how the tax system works because if you don't already know you're either lying or willingly ignorant, so what's the point.

***UPDATE***
Similar to Tony Snow, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is tired of the liberal media and is lashing out against CNN's shady practices. Better watch out, or they'll throw the old Cheney X on him.

Senator Files Complaint Against CNN After 'Ambush' Thu May 11 2006 12:21:05 ET

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is filing a formal complaint with chamber officials regarding what he considers an “unethical” broadcast of an interview with him by a CNN reporter Tuesday.

ROLL CALL reports: In an incident that could have repercussions for TV journalists’ access to the chamber, Stevens is furious with CNN correspondent Joe Johns for an interview conducted outside the weekly GOP policy luncheons, but far away from the usual bank of TV cameras set up for such interviews next to the storied Ohio Clock.

“This was not a formal interview request. This was an ambush in the hallway,” said Stevens spokeswoman Courtney Boone. “He was asked to go on camera and declined.”

Stevens is filing the complaint with the Senate Radio/TV Gallery, the office charged with overseeing broadcast reporters, and the Rules and Administration Committee, which establishes the ground rules for what access media have on the Senate side of the Capitol.

CNN officials denied Stevens’ assertion that he didn’t know he was being filmed by their employees. “It was not an ambush, the Senator knew he was on camera,” said Edie Emery, a CNN spokeswoman.

It’s unclear what steps would be taken by either the gallery or the committee, or if there would be any punitive actions against Johns or the network if his report is found to have broken chamber policy.

Developing...

***UPDATE***
Others:
The Sandbox, California Conservative, Expose the Left, Right Voices, AJ Strata, Sister Toldjah

 

Let's hope that President Bush doesn't call law enforcement in Maricopa County, AZ "vigilantes", like he did the Minutemen. And just incase anyone isn't aware, the Minutemen do nothing more than spot border crossers, and inform border patrol. Similarly, Maricopa County is just enforcing the law and essetially saying "screw you Feds if you won't want to crack down, we will!"

Fox News has the story of what will hopefully become a trend:

A 250-member posse that will operate similarly to the anti-smuggler task force will patrol the area for illegal immigrants who pay smugglers to cross through Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

The posse will be made up of existing sheriff's deputies and members of the department's 3,000-member posse reserve of trained, unpaid volunteers.

The four illegal immigrants pulled over Monday will be turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and sent back to Mexico. But those that are captured by the posse may end up in jail, charged under a state law that has been used against more than 100 illegal immigrants in Maricopa County this year.

Here's the best part. Arizona modeled a state law after a federal law that simply wasn't being enforced by the feds, so that their local law enforcement could take the power back. Are you hearing this New Mexico, California, and Texas.

The law made human smuggling a state crime in Arizona — it was already a federal crime — allowing local law enforcement agencies to arrest suspected smugglers. It was meant to crack down on smugglers, but under a disputed interpretation, County Attorney Andrew Thomas argues the law can be applied to the smuggled immigrants themselves.

Thomas maintains illegal immigrants who pay smugglers to enter the United States are committing conspiracy to smuggle and can therefore be prosecuted under the state law.

I hate to sound cheesy and steal the "you're a great American" line from Sean Hannity, but what else do you say about this Sherrif:

"I'm going to catch as many as I can and throw them in my jail," said Sheriff Joe Arpaio. "And the jails are not that nice."

They may not be that nice sir, but I almost have to wonder if they're better than living in Mexico. I would say that the thought of being thrown in jail, as word spreads, could act as a deterrant. But I mean, in jail they get fed free and life is probably about as good as it was in Mexico.

It remains to be seen whether a judge will uphold the smuggling law as applicable to illegal immigrants. Lawyers for some arrested illegal immigrants have filed motions to have the charges dismissed.

I've got to ask a weird question here... Where are illegal ALIENS getting lawyers!?

Let's hear more from our new hero:

"I get sued when I go to the toilet. You think I'm worried about it?" he said. "If they think I'm going to slow down because of these threats, I've got news for them — I'm not going to slow down. I'll do more of it."

Okay, well he's one liners could use a little more work. He makes his point, but with some sort of Rumsfeld-esque flair he could have really gotten a great soundbyte out of that. Read the rest of the story hear.

Either way this is great news, and they are trying to send the message "don't cross here". The bad news is that they'll just cross somewhere else unless all border counties take the same action. Let's get it done folks.

 

***UPDATE***
Hot Air says that this is old news, and has video of the President's comments. Expose the Left has video of the President's comments as well.

***UPDATE - SURPRISE, SURPRISE MEDIA LYING... SAYS NSA "MONITORING" CALLS***

No one sould be shocked, but once again the media is lying. Here's a Yahoo! News search on 'NSA monitoring'. Dig through and find your favorite offender.

As always, I like to pick on the Yahoo.com home page... The top headline currently reads: NSA monitoring phone calls of millions in U.S. (see screen shot at right). What's odd is when you click the link, the page you land on has a different, but still dishonest headline: NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls. Wrong again guys, no one is "monitoring" and they don't have a database of your "calls", they have a list of call records, and no information about the content of the calls.

***UPDATE***
Both sides of the blogosphere are weighing in. The left is looney as ever, you've got to scroll down to see what the DailyKOS has to say. Outside the Beltway sums the media spin of this up in one line (versus my rambling): "Calls. Call records. Same thing, right? Um, no." Scroll to the bottom for more blogger reaction...

(original post below)
The media and liberal leakers inside the NSA decided that they hadn't undermined national security in an effort to hurt the President lately, so USA Today stepped up. My guess is that they figure that the President's numbers have virtually bottomed out for the time being, even going up in the most recent Fox poll, and there wasn't really enough controversy around the President's new CIA chief nominee General Hayden, so USA Today thought they'd get some anonymous sources together to "expose" a program, and make it sound like something it's not, and put a bunch of pictures of Hayden all over the article.

I wonder if we should expect John Kerry to be on one of the Sunday shows this weekend commeding these leakers for this "good leak". Either way, don't be surprised if the media tries to turn this in to this week's "Bush administration scandal" though. They do this constantly, and almost always the story eventually fades away but the fact that they manufactured a controversy hurts the Presdient enough. The media is fully aware of this, and they constantly use this hit and run tactic to hurt him, even when the war on terror suffers as a result.

(slight tangent alert)
The old saying I heard once is that it's like being told you have cancer, a few weeks later you go in for surgery to remove it and the doctor says "there's nothing here", and sows you back up. Sure, you're not dead, but you're stuck with that huge scar now. This is why the media just lobs these things out one after another, and we've seen the impact. Not that we haven't all proved the media is liberally biased hundreds of times, I think public opinion about the economy is the perfect example to use. I explain in this post that almost half of the country isn't aware that we aren't in a recession. Here's the main point, recession isn't an opinion, either we are in one or not. Only 51% of the public are aware that we are not, while 30% think we are, and 19% aren't sure. Whether you agree on motives, can we agree that the media isn't doing it's job if almost half of the country doesn't know the FACT that we aren't in a recession. I'm not even going to list of job growth, unemployment, housing, wages, GDP, consumer confidence, consumer spending, productivity, etc. etc. Although I do want to mention, incase you missed it, that April 2006 came in second for all time tax revenue taken in by the government. Yes, you read that right libs, lower taxes, higher tax revenue.
(end tangent)

Back to this NSA "scandal", here's the deal... You've probably heard in plenty of court cases that are covered on the news, where the court obtains "phone records". In case you weren't aware, the phone companies have a record of all of your calls. Not listening in, just what numbers you dialed, that kind of thing. After 9/11 the NSA asked the major phone companies for access to these records. Three companies, AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth complied, while Qwest didn't (and has not). Oh yeah, and the part you're going to hear so much about, these records were obtained "without warrants".

So you better board up the windows and start corresponding only via ham radio or some type of morris code device, because you know evil Bush and his NSA minions are spying on your calls... You know because they have the time and the resources to listen in on you liberals calling your parents to send you more money while you start yet another year of college, instead of entering the real world.

Basically the NSA is looking for calling patterns, etc. in hopes of catching Al Qaeda. Just kidding, it's really Bush's latest method of voter intimidation.

As I said, this USA Today story is the big exclusive, and as usual relies COMPLETELY on anonymous sources. What a convenient time for this to happen, as the former head of the NSA is up for the CIA chief job. Just a coincidence I'm sure, right USA Today and liberal leakers? How lucky that they managed to stick a bunch of pictures of him in the article too!

The article is extremely long and extremely repetitive, so I'll just give you the opening excerpt, and let you read the whole thing at your leisure.

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

So what's the big deal? I don't get it, but you can rest assured the libs and "civil liberties" groups will be screaming about this, despite never explaining their problem with it. They'll shout "privacy", but won't explain how anyone is being harmed, and don't expect them to protest YellowBook for publicly publishing phone numbers.

Anyway, the article goes on and on, repeating the same boring information over and over hoping that a gigantic article will make you believe that there is really some controversy here. To the libs that this is going to set off, I'd like to ask you what you'd do if a terrorist attack happens, and this program, or the terrorist surveillance program could have tipped us off? Would you say, "but at least no one heard me call my Grandma!", or would you scream at the President for not protecting us, that's what it all comes down to. Some goes for open borders liberals, if a terrorist came in to the country via the Mexican border.

Others:
Before I get to the Right side of the blogosphere, I have to point out this sarcastic line from the DailyKOS, that is hilarious for a reason they didn't intend:

Obviously, they're fighting terror. Because every single American might just be participating in terrorism. So they really need to keep track of all of our phone calls. It's obvious, right? Obvious, but not particularly legal, though since when has that stopped BushCo?

Again, that was sarcasm, so I'd like to ask the KOS kids: Are you advocating racial profiling then? You are implying that this isn't to fight terrorism because it's EVERYONE... then how do you propose they choose who to keep phone RECORDS (not calls) of? I submit that if the NSA was only keeping records of brown skinned people or Muslims you'd be screaming racial profiling. Let's face it, you'd rather we get attacked and then blame the President for not stopping it.

Others:
Hot Air, The Moderate Voice, Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Confederate Yankee, Outside the Beltway, AJ Strata, Rick Moran, Macsmind, Michelle Malkin, The Sandbox, Flopping Aces, Ninth State, Sensible Mom, Nathan Branfield, OKIE on the LAM, The View From North Central Idaho, GroupIntel, The Unalienable Right, Flap's Blog, Don't Go Into The Light, Donkey Stomp, Independent Conservative, Iowa Voice, Wizbang, Left Wing = Hate, Amber, Small Town Veteran, Joust the Facts, A Lady's Ruminations, Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin 1, Michelle Malkin 2, Michelle Malkin 3, Chickenhawk Express, Riehl World View 1, Riehl World View 2, A Blog For All, The Political Pit Bull, Blogs For Bush, UrbanGrounds, Captain's Quarters

***UPDATE - MORE LEFTY CRAZINESS***
Glenn Greenwald has an long post up about this, and I don't even need to get past the first two paragraphs to realize what a pile it is:

I just this morning read the obviously significant USA Today article detailing the fact that the NSA is maintaining a comprehensive data base of every call made by every American – both internationally and domestically – whether they have anything to do with terrorism or not, obviously all of this without warrants or oversight of any kind. I'm not going to pretend to have all of the legal issues figured out in two hours, and so I won't yet opine as to whether there are serious grounds for arguing either that this is legal or that it’s illegal.

But there is one highly significant, and revealing, item buried in the USA Today article regarding Qwest's refusal to cooperate with the NSA’s demands (and it heroic refusal to capitulate to the NSA’s intimidation tactics and threats) that it turn over its customers' calling data:

First Glenn says that the NSA "is maintaining a comprehensive data base of every call...", but in his very next paragraph notes how Qwest stood up to the big bad NSA. I don't think I need to explain to anyone that they clearly don't have a "data base of every call" if they don't have Qwests information, not to mention all the cell phone companies, which is all millions of people (myself included) use these days.

I'm a little confused how this guy has such a large readership, when he begins a post with contradicting sentences. Obviously this isn't the most important thing in the world, but why would I go any further?And calling Qwest "heroic"!? You don't think that's just a little overboard? I suspect Stephan Colbert is a hero too right? Don't sue me Glenn! I'm not infringing on your free speech, I'm mocking it.

Anyway libs, get ready to change your number because you know the Bush administration is clearing out the NSA (obviously not everyone there is friendly to them) and spending the rest of their time in Washington searching for the phone numbers of anyone who voted for John Kerry and then finding out what numbers they called. You better be scared, because... well, they can't really do anything with that information anyway. This evil war criminal administration really got you this time didn't they!

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeard on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss Iran, "the letter", Vice President Cheney's comments on Russia, and more. Note that I missed the first 10-15 seconds, and that this came from my old/crappy VCR so the video starts really choppy, but does clear up pretty well after a minute.

The whole interview was informative, particularly when she explained what "The Iran Letter" really said, which contradicts many of the media reports that have treated the letter like it was some kind of olive branch being offered by Ahmadinejad.

My favorite part of the interview though, was hearing Condi answer Brian Kilmeade's questions about Dick Cheney's recent criticism of Russia.

Kilmeade: Still an ally though?

Secretary of State Rice: The Russians are clearly still, in many ways, an important partner...

Notice that Rice wouldn't call Russian an "ally", but instead said called them "in many ways, an important partner". This was my favorite part of the interview because I've said for some time that Russia, France and others are not our allies anymore, and they often come off as borderline enemies of the United States. This is the first time that I've heard anyone from the administration essentially publicly demote Russia from "ally" status.

Secretary Rice also appeared on The Today Show today, Expose the Left has video. Breakdown at Condiblog.

 

***UPDATE 5/11 10:10 AM CT***
Hot Air's latest Vent With Michelle Malkin hammers the UN for all of what was discussed in this post, and more.

***UPDATE***
Not surprisingly the UN has elected Cuba, among other human rights abusers to the Human Rights Council. At least Iran and Venezuela didn't get in.

***UPDATE***
A former UN worker gives her first hand testimony in RightWinged.com comments. In case you missed it, I've added it to this actual post. Scroll down to read it

***SCROLL FOR MORE UPDATES***

Whether you agree with me about the need to disband United Nations or not, you would have to admit that they are the most corrupt and disgraceful organization in existence today. No I'm not just talking about the biggest scandal of all time, Oil for Food, I'm talking about the habit their "peacekeepers" have of raping small children in war torn and third world countries.

It's actually kind of interesting that the latest story comes out just a day after I posted on the rape of thousands of little girls in the Congo at the hands of the UN. That post of course was about Eric Shawn's new book The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World, and I mentioned the underreported story of mass child rapes occuring at the hands of the UN, when saying that I hoped it has it's own chapter in the book. I also mentioned a similar story from a few years back in Bosnia, but if you do a few quick searches you'll see the UN is doing this all over the world.

Well today's story that should be, but I suspect won't be front page NY Times material, and probably won't get mentioned at all by most of the media, just piles on and shows that the United Nations are by no means cleaning up their act. In this article you'll learn that in one confirmed case, they "supsended" the official involved. If I recall, when I heard the limited reporting on the rapes in the Congo, similar actions were taken. SUSPENDED!? Are you kidding me!?

Reuters has some coverage (that again, I doubt many will pick up) and I couldn't help but notice that they left "UN" and "United Nations" out of the headline that reads: Peacekeepers, teachers prey on Liberia girls: report. Peace keepers huh? Doesn't sound like they're worried as much about peace, so why not mention that it's the "United Nations" in the headline?

MONROVIA (Reuters) - U.N. peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers are having sex with Liberian girls as young as 8 in return for money, food or favors, threatening efforts to rebuild a nation wrecked by war, a report said on Monday.

Save the Children UK said an alarming number of girls were being sexually exploited by men in authority in refugee camps and in the wider community, sometimes for as little as a bottle of beer, a ride in an aid vehicle or watching a film.

Such a classy operation... why are we part of this group again?

The 20-page document said local people reported sexual exploitation by peacekeepers in every location where a contingent of the UNMIL peacekeeping force was stationed, highlighting the continuing problem of sex abuse by U.N. forces.

Allegations of sexual misconduct have dogged U.N. operations in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Haiti and especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the world body has accused members of its biggest peacekeeping force of rape, pedophilia and giving children food or money in return for sex.

Well, that's only a partial list of countries where this is and has happened, but I guess minimal reporting is better than no reporting.

The U.N. force in Liberia said in a statement eight cases of sexual exploitation and abuse involving U.N. personnel had been reported since the start of 2006. One of those had been substantiated and the member of staff suspended.

Way, way to go UN, that's really throwin' the book at 'em! By the way, eight cases may have been "reported", but I would guess, like in the other countries, there are probably thousands of occurances. Keep in mind that this is the UN statement saying that there have been eight cases reported, and they obviously have an interest in downplaying what is clearly a worldwide scandal.

The report's compilers spoke to more than 300 people in camps for displaced people and communities where people had recently returned to their pre-war localities.

"All of the respondents clearly stated that they felt that the scale of the problem affected over half of the girls in their locations," it said, adding aid workers, teachers, camp and government employees, policemen and soldiers were involved.

"The girls reportedly ranged in age from 8 to 18 years, with girls of 12 years and upwards identified as being regularly involved in 'selling sex'," commonly referred to as "man business," it said.

It did not give a total number for estimated cases of sexual exploitation in Liberia.

Yeah, those bastards in the Congo thought they were really something when they raped 12 year olds... let's seem 'em top this! Read the rest here.

Rumor has it that the UN's new motto is going to be "Just when you thought you war torn country couldn't suck any more, we come in and rape your elementary school aged children!"

Again, I have links to the Congo and Bosnia stories in my previous post, but I'm sure if you dig around you could find more coverage, despite the fact that you probably never heard about it from the NY Times or on the network news. I just did a quick Yahoo! (not Yahoo! News) search on 'United Nations Rape', and the number one result of course is from the "alternative media", a World Net Daily article dated March 1, 2005 with the headline: U.N. targeting own sex abuse. But don't let the headline fool you, because without any media coverage to drive public outcry, he United Nations just really sweeps it all under the rug, and of course continues this peacekeeping outrageous behavior, now in Liberia.

Again, you can dig up all kinds of underreported information on the UN's rape and child rape problem, but here's just a bit from that WND article that was about the empty claims that Annan was going to crack down on people over this continuing problem:

As it currently stands, many peacekeepers accused of wrongdoing are never punished, since they're simply sent home to be handled by their own governments.

"We are taking very firm measures – changing some of the commanders, some of the civilian staff have been disciplined – and we've come up with very strict instructions that they should not fraternize the way they have done in the past," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday.

(sarcasm) Whoa, cool your jets bub! That's a little harsh wouldn't you say? "Changing commanders", "disciplining staff" (why do they remain "staff" at all!? And why are they not being prosecuted?!). Boy, I don't want to get on your bad side! (/sarcasm)

By the way Kofi, did these people really need "strict instructions" to know not to rape women and small girls? I don't think anyone on the planet needs "instructions" not to do that, and I should expect the UN has an employment screening process that would allow them to determine if someone was legally retarded, as they would have to be to not know better than to rape women and children!

Now here's something really interesting:

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the widespread sex scandal came to be known as "the U.N.'s Abu Ghraib," with the London Times providing some specific examples, including:

That got me thinking.... Where are the 45 front page NY Times stories in 50 days (or whatever it was)? I mean, we have prosecuted something like 8 or 9 people for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the media coverage continues to this day, despite there being nothing really new since the first month the story broke. We've had the ACLU sue for the release of more pictures that stood to do nothing but spark more muslim outrage, and added nothing to the story... But I haven't heard jack about this, and the raping of 8 year old girls is certainly worse than making a bunch of captured insurgents get naked and stand in a cheerleader pyramid, wouldn't you agree?

When will Human Rights Watch and all the others will be attacking the United Nations relentlessly over this? When will the media overcover this until they are doing nothing but repeating the same exact information all day every day?

Now for the handful of examples mentioned in that last excerpt:

* A French U.N. logistics expert in the Congo shot pornographic videos in his home, in which he had converted his bedroom into a photo studio for videotaping his sexual abuse of young girls. When police raided his home, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a law enforcement sting operation. As the Times reported, a senior Congolese police officer confirmed the bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, with a remote control camera on the fourth side.

* U.N. officials are worried that the scandal, which already has netted 150 allegations of sex crimes by U.N. staffers, will explode if the pornographic videos and photos, now on sale in Congo, becoming public

"It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," one senior official told the Times.

* Two Russian pilots paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them, the report adds.

* U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani – a secluded town on the Congo River – are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.

Congo's Minister of Defense Maj.-Gen. Jean Pierre Ondekane told a top U.N. official that all U.N. "peacekeepers" in Kisangani would be remember for would be "for running after little girls," the Times reported.

* And at least two U.N. officials – a Ukrainian and a Canadian – have been forced to leave the African nation after getting local women pregnant.

In backwards order...

"Forced to leave", again way to bring the hammer down Kofi.

Impregnated 82 women and girls? Can you imagine how many they actually had sex with?! Can you remember ever reading a headline that said "UN Workers Impregnate 82 Women and Girls In the Congo"? I don't.

Condiments for sex? Way to help out these poor people UN, great job as always! I just can't even imagine how cruel and evil must these men are. And are they rotting in jail? The story doesn't say but my guess is they are still working in the same capacity as they were when they commited these acts, since the UN hasn't even done anything that could be called a slap on the wrist in any of these cases.

Now, the first example in the list is where see the extreme double standard. Remember just before those examples I told you how they call this the "UN's Abu Ghraib", but obviously the media hasn't had the same interest. Well that first example in that list is very telling. Where have the ACLU and far left groups been? Why are they not demanding the release of these images?! Obviously they wouldn't want to print them, but shouldn't they be as outraged, or actually much more outraged than they were over Abu Ghraib story?

Wondering what the human rights groups are saying? The UN is obviously not saying anything about it, so let's see if anyone else is.

Human Rights Watch doesn't mention this story... But they do have "U.S.: Bush Should Close Guantanamo Now" as their top story. I checked their "news" page, and nothing there either.

Amnesty International is as silent as HRW, but of course they managed to squeeze in a dig at America in their latest news section, with a headline that reads: US: Government creating "climate of torture". Also like HRW, they have nothing on their news page.

Would you believe it's the same situation at Human Rights First? And of coures, the obligatory America bashing headlines are there: U.S. Must Abide by Ban on Cruel Treatment and Groundbreaking Research Shows Over 600 U.S. Personnel Implicated in Widespread Abuse

I think you get the point. If you would like to express your outrage, there is only one way to contact the UN on their web site, through this contact form. But I think you'd be better off contacting the media with your outrage because it's only through their coverage that pressure will be put on the UN to do something.

I'm surprised to see that the blogosphere hasn't even really picked up today's Liberia story. There are a couple LiveJournal people who's copied the whole story without anything further, and this genius who's headline reads: So we're in Iraq fighting for human rights...what about Liberia? Darfur?. I know if you follow the link, you'll see that this text is small, but it is the headline. It's the headline in Technorati, and the rest of the post is the copied and pasted article. I think it's pretty clear that this girl didn't bother to read the article to find out that the UN is the guilty party here. I'm sure if we asked her if we should go to war against the UN in Liberia she'd be a little confused.

More from Gateway Pundit

***UPDATE***
Others:
Expose the Left has video of Eric Shawn on Hannity and Colmes, and Independent Conservative has audio of him on Hannity's radio show, discussing his new book: The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World

***UPDATE***
A lot of bloggers are up in arms over Cuba being given a Human Rights Council seat. While I certainly completely agree with their outrage, at the same time I'm kind of like "what did ya expect?" The UN is a horrible institution that was even entertaining the idea, and it looked likely for a while, to let Iran on the council. So yes, this is deserving of everyone's outrage, but at the same time I never expected anything better from the UN. For more on this check out:
Michelle Malkin (thanks for the link), Captain's Quarters, Gateway Pundit, Publius Pundit, Babalou Blog, Stop the ACLU

***UPDATE***
It seems the UN has similar problems to this elementary school. At least in this school, where 12 boys aged 6-8 sexually assaulted an 8 year old girl, they were suspended. A teacher who should have been watching has been fired, and another suspended. It's sad that the UN can't even be this harsh with their ADULT employees repeatedly raping little girls, impregnating them, trading tiny amounts of food for sex, etc.

***UPDATE***
I received the following in a comment from someone calling herself Mishka. Of course I have not verification of whether this is true or not, but I suspect it is. Basically she gives a first hand account of being witness to these shameful UN activities:

I am very sorry to tell you that UN corruption and rape is not limited to the countries you've listed. I was personally a UN officer in Eastern Sudan and the biggest difficulty of my job was not the harsh environment we lived and worked in, but dealing with other fellow officers, predominantly from other African countries. These gentlemen not only abused girls in the refugee camps, but ended up raping a UN volunteer in our compound. I was quite new at the job and quite young. My attempts to do something about these abuses lead to my contract being discontinued. The gentleman who raped my friend was quite high on the chain of command in the UN and was far more powerful. Before my contract ended, I left voluntarily because I was harrassed and threatened by some of my fellow UN officers. There was only one other female in the camp, the rest were all men. The UN has some very hard working and dedicated people who have done an amazing job in relief and development, but they are a minority. The organization as a whole is quite corrupt and needs to be dissolved and replaced by another body that is made accountable to donor countries. I went to Sudan with the most idealist and naive mind. I wanted to make my contribution towards making the world a better place. I left my job in Sudan emotionally scarred for life. My friend who got raped was never able to bring this bastard to justice. God knows how many other victims he's leaving behind. Disgusting, just disgusting!!!

 

I think we all know that the rape accusations are almost certainly bogus, even if we aren't willing to admit it. I'll add more about what I believe really happened later, but check out this developement (h/t Drudge)

AP via CTCentral.com

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) -- Duke's response to rape allegations involving members of the men's lacrosse team was too slow and relied too heavily on secondhand information, a report commissioned by the university has found.

That included assertions by Durham police that the accuser "kept changing her story and was not credible," the report released Monday said. Relying on such opinion, the report said, was a mistake.

The day after the March 13 team party where a 27-year-old black woman claimed she was raped, Durham police told campus officers that "this will blow over," the report said. The woman initially told police she was raped by 20 white men, then said she was attacked by three, the report said.

More...

Previous:
PHOTOS: Duke Lacrosse Stripper Party Photos Exclusively Obtained By NBC

 

Two days ago I blogged about plans by Hamas to assassinate Palestinian President Abbas that were thwarted by Israeli intelligence, on the same day Jimmy Carter showered Hamas with compliments. What are his good buddies up to today? Oh just more fighting amongst themselves.

Hamas gunmen attacked Fatah activists as a power struggle between the two factions continues to grow. As we know, Hamas is a terrorist organization that was voted in to power in recent elections, and they also refuse to recognize Israel. Fatah, from what I can gather, had a better shot at diplomatic talks with Israel in hopes of coming to a peace agreement. Obviously this isn't an option with Hamas if they won't even recognize Israel's existence. So basically Jimmy Carter loves these thugs who are attacking their own people now, apparently because Fatah has less of a desire to kill?

Excerpt via AP by way of the Pensacola News Journal:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Nine Palestinians were wounded early Tuesday in renewed clashes between the Hamas and Fatah factions in downtown Gaza City, witnesses and paramedics say.

The clashes erupted after Hamas gunmen arrived at the home of a top Fatah official and opened fire at Fatah activists inside, witnesses said. The Fatah gunmen returned fire and nine were injured in the exchange, including five schoolchildren, hospital officials said. At least one of the wounded was a Hamas gunmen, officials said. No further details were available regarding the identity of the wounded.

Read on...

 

As you might have heard, Fox News' UN reporter Eric Shawn has a new book out entitled The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World. I just ran across National Review Online interview with Eric, conducted by the NRO's Kathryn Lopez, and thought I'd pass it along to everyone. I have only begun reading it, so I'll just excerpt the opening for you, and you can go check it out for yourself.

The U.N. has been incapable of confronting the gravest issues of our time, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation,” Eric Shawn tells National Review Online. “ It should stand as a beacon of hope and humanity. But instead, that ideal has been perverted by compromise, appeasement, and graft.”

As a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, Shawn covers the United Nations-so you know he never runs out of stories. In his new book on the beat, The U.N. Exposed, he, as the subtitle tells, reveals How the United Nations Sabotages America’s Security and Fails the World. He took some questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez on the tsunami at Turtle Bay, wasted tsunami funds, Iran, and much more.

Read on....

Like I said, I've only begun to read this, but I suspect it's worth a read, just as I suspect Eric's book will be. Incase you didn't know, I'm a "Get the UN out of NY"er, and I find them to be a shameful anti-American organization with (tinfoilt hat pleas) NWO goals that they hope to achieve through myths like "global warming" and overpopulation, among others. I also find the lack of reporting on their tremendous scandals a disgrace, particularly a story I heard about a couple years ago, but haven't heard any follow-up on, which is that UN officials were raping thousands of little girls in the Congo, as young as 12 and some reports even younger! As I said this was a couple years ago and I haven't heard any coverage about the UNtouchables since, but I did dig up this one WND article about the situation, though if want to dig I'm sure you can find more out there. And it's not jus the Congo, I found this article about similar activies in Bosnia, when I was looking for the Congo story.

Anyway I obviously don't think the UN exists for anything but evil, and it should be taken apart ASAP... But we know that won't happen, so I guess having John Bolton be our UN man is as good as it will get.

Back to Eric Shawn's book, I hope he covers the Congo rape situation in the book, because no one else seems to want to, in addition to all the obvious inner office type sex scandals, weasels abusing their immunitiy.... and oh yeah, only the biggest scandal in the history of the world - Oil for Food!

You can order your copy on Amazon now:

 

I guess I should first ask the obvious question: If this announcement happened on Friday, where has the media coverage been?! I mean, most of the MSM dropped the Kennedy thing as the top story within a day, once they played right in to his hands and now see him as a victim of a "disease", so where were they on this story? They certainly weren't covering the booming economic numbers that rolled in last week.

Anyway, as many have alleged throughout this whole thing, Plame's employment as a CIA employee wasn't a secret that was outted by the White House through reporters, and that many people were aware, and Wilson himself was in fact the real "leaker". If Libby's lawyer can deliver, this could change a lot of public opinion on this issue.... oh wait, the media would never report it honestly and hammer it home for weeks and months the way they did when they smelled White House blood.

At least NewsMax reported briefly.

In a development that got no media play over the weekend, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense lawyer announced on Friday that he has located five witnesses who will testify that Joe Wilson outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee before Robert Novak did so in his July 2003 column.

According to the NationalReviewOnline's Byron York, Libby's lawyer Ted Wells told the court that his witnesses "will say under oath that Mr. Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA."

Wells said that he expects Leakgate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to call Wilson to testify in a bid to salvage his case.

Reacting to the news on Friday, Wilson declined to deny the allegation, suggesting instead that it no longer mattered who first outed his wife.

"The last I heard, this is case is about allegations Mr. Libby lied, perjured himself before the FBI, special prosecutor and grand jury and obstructed justice," he told CNN in a statement. "None of those charges of which he's been indicted has anything to do with me."

I have to say this is the one time I agree with Wilson. He's right, Libby is there for basically lying (whether he did or not isn't know), not for leaking. As we know, Plame wasn't covered under the law, she wasn't covert, and the whole thing was ridiculous. Everyone down to the author of the law say she wasn't protected under the law, which is why no one is indicted in a "leak"... I can't read Patrick Fitzgerald's mind, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say the grasping at straws indictment (which is what I view this as) is only to appease Dems who would have thrown a fit if no indictments were brought at all.

At the same time, I think it's very likely that people in the White House and Libby were scared and he probably tried to cover his ass and lied. But I think it was all politics, I mean what was he going to do? Everyone was calling this non-leak a leak and it was front page, top story news for months, and continues to be and if he said "yeah, I told someone that Plame worked at the CIA", that would have been this huge "admission of guilt", despite the fact that, again, as we know Plame wasn't covered under this "leak" law. Is that an excuse or justification for lying? No. A reason? Possibly.

But the point is here, while Wilson is right that this is about lying not the leak now... He's and all his Dem buddies screamed about a leak and how the administration put Plame's life in danger by playing dirty politics and breaking a law. That bogus charge started this whole thing that forced an investigation in to bogus charges.

So again, she wasn't covered under the law, and the administration had to do something to counter Wilson's proven lies. He didn't do jack in Niger, and many feel his "findings" actually may have truly supported the Presidents case, rather than debunked it as Wilson claimed. Wilson lied in saying that Cheney sent him to Niger, and he spun/lied by calling attacking the State of the Union "16 words", like the rest of the left, by saying that Saddam never bought nukyalar goodies from Niger. The fact is, President Bush didn't claim that Saddam did. He said "sought", and that's a very different thing. The Brits stand by the intelligence (which the president was citing) and the former PM of Niger confirms the same thing! WE KNOW that these claims weren't based on the known forged documents, despite what the left tells you, and we know it wasn't a "lie" no matter how you slice it.

This is all so ridiculous, I'm bored with this post. Back to the point quickly though, wait until you see the lack of media coverage over this. Remember the virtual dead silence over Sticky Fingers Berger? Even after he was convicted, etc? Well don't expect anymore when it's revealed that Plame's employment wasn't a secrect and that Joe Wilson was the one blabbing about it to people. We've heard many people claim this for a while, but at least we'll hear the truth finally... but don't expect it to go beyond the blogosphere and maybe 2 days of coverage on Fox News. Of course on Hannity and Colmes, Alan and liberal guests will say "but this case isn't about the leak, it's about lying".... Of course that's different than what they've been screaming for the past couple years, faking concern and fear for Plame's life.

 

So News Corp./Fox News/Rupert Murdoch are all part of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" huh?

Drudge:

MURDOCH TO HOST FUNDRAISER FOR HILLARY CLINTON Mon May 08 2006 18:25:16 ET

Rupert Murdoch has agreed to host a political fundraiser for Hillary Clinton this summer!

Murdoch's surprise decision to raise money for Clinton in July, on behalf of NEWS CORP., parent company of FOXNEWS and the NEW YORK POST, underlines a dramatic turn of relations between Murdoch and Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband.

The move by Murdoch is believed to reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate in 2008.

Last week, Clinton surprised Washington and media watchers by attending a FOX NEWS anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch.

Political powerbroker and studio head Harvey Weinstein is said to have convinced Hillary that Murdoch could be a friend, not a foe, in her ongoing political maneuvers.

Developing...

What is going on here!? One can only hope that this is part of a "vast rightwing conspiracy" and Murdoch is hoping to get on the inside to get the dirtiest of dirt to filter down to Fox News Channel. Though if we're talking about Hillary for president, I suppose that won't be necessary, considering polls continute to show us just how unelectable she is anyway. I don't think Murdoch could do anything about that.

What's weird is this isn't new to some people. I mean, we all brushed off Hillary's little appearance at the Fox News Sunday anniversary party a couple weeks ago, but NewsMax was noticing these two getting cozy almost a year ago, and they weren't the only ones.

I see now that the Financial Times is on top of this story as well. I think the author of this piece also reveals her obvious liberal bias, unless she's a columnist that I'm just not familiar with. But as I read this story, it comes off as reporting of hard news, despite it's obvious bias:

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp.

One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

The decision reflects an assiduous courtship by Mrs Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. Last month Mrs Clinton surprised Washington by attending the “Fox News Sunday” 10th anniversary party, where she chatted with Mr Murdoch.

Mr Clinton has encouraged Mr Murdoch’s involvement with his Global Initiative and has invited him to speak again at the second forum in September. The former president will also address News Corp’s summer conference.

The fundraiser for Ms Clinton’s re-election is in stark contrast to the brutal coverage from the New York Post of her first Senate campaign.

The partisan tabloid ran unflattering pictures, and frontpage headlines pleading: “DON’T RUN”. A poll from the Post’s website during the campaign identified her as the sixth “most evil” person of the millennium, ahead of Benito Mussolini and Vlad the Impaler. Her husband ranked second.

One media lobbyist said: “Murdoch will be for the Republicans but he is also smart enough to know that the Republicans might not win. At some level, whether nationally or in New York, Hillary is the future and what savvy businessman would not want to put a line of interest in someone who will be the future?”

Mrs Clinton’s campaign office declined to comment.

I put the obvious biased portion in bold, and incase ya missed it, they called Fox News a "conservative cable channel". Setting aside the obvious fact that they call it a "cable channel" rather than "cable news outlet" or "cable news channel" or "cable news network", no just a "channel"... No, my problem is with her calling it a "conservative" channel. Of course liberals will want to go point-counterpoint on this, but that's not the issue in this case. The issue is whether or not someone should be writing (again what appears to me) a hard news piece, with obvious opinion added to it. Someone please correct me if this is a Caroline Daniel "column" rather than a news story, and I'll accept that. But as far as I can tell, Caroline Daniel is a news reporter for FT, not a columnist.

Others:
Early Spin Blog, Right Voices

***UPDATE***
Exclusive photo of Hillary steppin' With Rupert Murdoch, a.k.a R-Mur.

 

A hat tip to Michelle Malkin for finding this story, and like her I don't have much to add, because the Washington Post (for once) struck back at Democrats with a little truth.

What the Dems are trying to say:

President Bush's crop of political appointees includes fewer women and minorities than did President Bill Clinton's at comparable points in their presidencies, according to a new report by House Democrats.

Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared with about 47 percent in the Clinton administration in 1997, according to the report and supplemental data released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. Similarly, about 13 percent of Bush administration appointees last year were racial minorities, compared with 24 percent in the fifth year of Clinton's presidency, the report found.

The 13-page report, compiled using data from the Office of Personnel Management, says the number of women and minority appointees increased during the first five years after Clinton took office and has declined during Bush's tenure.

And the reality:

What the report does not mention, however, is that Bush has established a record of diversity in his Cabinet. Bush's Cabinet, which includes the vice president and the heads of 15 executive departments, currently has two Hispanics, two African Americans and two Asian Americans. Three departments -- State, Education and Labor -- are headed by women, and a fourth, Interior, has an acting secretary who is a woman.

Before Bush took office, no minority had occupied any of the four highest-profile Cabinet positions -- attorney general and the secretaries of the Defense, State and Treasury departments. Now, Alberto R. Gonzales, a Hispanic, is attorney general. Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to be secretary of state; her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, was the first African American named to that post.

What a ridiculous way to attack. I thought these uncivilized obstructionists were confident that they'll be taking back at least one house, but obviously not if they have to really reach to try to attack on something so dishonestly spun and stupid. The fact is that this president has appointed more women and minorities to TOP positions than any other previous president. Like it or not, that's the reality. This whole idiotic thing had to focus on just one specific year of President Bush's administration to attack his appointments, and it's a flawed argument anyway. What are they mad about? That Bush isn't just throwing a bunch of minorities and women in lower positions to score political points by saying "look at my minority friendly appointments", but instead he appoints extremely qualified women and minorities to HIGH LEVEL positions, because they deserve to be there.

So again to make this clear, Democrats are mad that Bush hasn't filled as many low level positions with minorities in his 5th year as President, as Clinton did in his 5th year, but instead has filled high level positions with them? Okay, I think I got it now. Perhaps Cynthia McKinney should go slap President Bush around a bit to straighten him out.. oh wait he's not a cop. Nevermind.

 

For the first time in 27 years and Iranian President has written a letter to an American President. Now, I don't see this any huge breakthrough because Ahmadinejad keeps going back and forth (remind anyone of North Korea over the years?). One day he's all friendly and wants to work with the UN, etc. and the next day he's denying the holocaust and calling for the annihilation. We've seen this go in circles for a number of months now, and I think if anything is clear, it's that this guy needs to go.

Setting all of that aside for a minute, here's a little about the letter from the AP via MSNBC:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to President Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

The letter will be sent via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran which has a U.S. interests section, Elham told a press conference. Initially it seemed the letter had already been sent, but later Elham told reporters it would be delivered Monday.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world," Elham said.

It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his U.S. counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke relations after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year.

Asked if the letter could lead to direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, Elham replied: for the time being, it's just a letter."

Read on...

As I said, I don't know that this means much more than any of the other seemingly cooperative statements we've seen from Ahmadinejad in recent months, but it is interesting that it's sort of a "breakthrough" in that it hasn't happened in almost 3 decades. I guess what I'm saying is cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath.

What I can't wait to see is how liberals handle this. Will they praise Ahmadinejad for being so diplomatic and trying to work with our "war criminal" President? Or will they be silent since many has said "Bush attacked the wrong country, Iran was the real threat? And why not N. Korea!?" The right has always argued that different situations call for different measures. While I agree with many that military action will probably be required to deal with Iran eventually, this just shows that the President is trying (like he and previous Presidents did with Iraq) to work the UN route and handle the situation peacefully.

I may not think this letter means much, but some might argue it's a sign that diplomacy and pressure are working a little. Again, this is a pretty unusual move. Could Iran be feeling like the heat is on them now? Who knows. But what I can say is that Saddam Hussein didn't operate like this. He was firing at no-fly zone patrolling planes regularly, and when UN inspectors were actually in country he never gave them unfettered access, and it was just a total runaround waste of time to even bother with going that route. I still believe the WMDs were there for many reasons, many of which can be found here, but that's another story.

This story is also today's liberal bias in the headlines case:

Now admittedly, I'm nitpicking here a bit, but I thought I should at least mention it, because I did notice it. Why is it "Iranian President" but only "Bush" Not "President Bush"? Of course it makes it shorter and sweeter, and they could argue: "everyone knows who Bush is, but they may not know the name Ahmadinejad", and that may have some merit, but I think the "Bush" thing is all too common. Headlines constantly read "Bush" not "President Bush", and I can't count the amount of times I hear news correspondents reporting from Washington refer to him as "Mr. Bush". I can't recall hearing "Mr. Clinton" very often though, and usually when they mention him he's referred to as "President Clinton" or "Former President Clinton". Libs would argue that this is in my head, but the simple fact is it's disrespectful that these reports insist on calling him "Mr. Bush", and it's an obvious "he's not my President" dig.

As for this specific headline, I don't know if MSNBC or the AP is to blame. My guess is the AP since I see similar headline when I do a few news searches.

For something along the same lines, Expose the Left has video of two segments from ABC's This Week in which host George Stephanopoulos refers to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as "Speaker Pelosi". Stephanopoulos first "slipped" during his interview with Tom Delay, and again later with Howard Dean. Wishful thinking Georgyboy?

And for all the liberals whining about the "Bush mouthpiece" Fox News, and citing Bush's hiring of Tony Snow as an example... I haven't heard you whining about Stephanopoulos hosting a supposedly non-partisan program, even though he is the former senior political adviser press secretary, and communications director for former President Clinton. Selective outrage? And by the way, Snow was a "Fox News commentator" and a columnist, and former speech writer for Bush 41 and this was never a secret. And as I'm finishing this, I just heard Brian Kilmeade on Fox & Friends say that Stephanopoulos "slipped" 4 times! Honest mistake, right?

***QUICK UPDATE***
Props to India Daily for writing a proper headline: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly written a letter to U.S. President Bush to propose new ways to resolve tensions"

***UPDATE***
Hot Air has posted on this, and sums up the entire Iran situation as it stands today.

 

Megyn Kendall (sitting in for E.D. Hill on Fox & Friends this morning) interviewed National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley this morning and asked him about the rumored nomination of USAF Gen. Michael Hayden to replace Porter Goss as CIA chief.

Fox News has an article here, as does the AP via Yahoo! News. Most other stories at this point are still only reporting the rumor but I just saw Hadley confirm that he is in fact the nominee.

 

***UPDATE***
Expose the Left has the video of the new "Censure Jimmy Carter commercial.

Just popping over to Hot Air to see what's new, I ran across this late night/early morning post from Allahpundit, on reports that Israeli intelligence helped thwart an assassination attempt by Hamas on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

A HAMAS plot to assassinate Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has been thwarted after he was tipped off by Israeli intelligence.

Hamas’s military wing, the Izza Din Al-Qassem, had planned to kill Abbas at his office in Gaza, intelligence sources said.

Abbas, who became president of the Palestinian Authority last year after the death of Yasser Arafat, was formally warned of the danger by the Israelis and cancelled a planned visit to the territory.

Read the full Times Online story here. Allahpundit believes this may not be exactly as it appears.

I did a quick Yahoo! News search to see if there was anything else on this story, but before I got that far I clicked on an International Herald Tribune link to a column by no one's everyone's favorite former President, Jimmy Carter. I'm having a tough time picking out what I want to excerpt from it, because he basically all but bends over for Hamas, while trashing American policy. Yes, he does acknowledge that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, but he seems far less concerned with that, and more concerned with evil American and other countries withholding money from a country that has elected a terrorist government (who name may be going after their own).

In addition to brushing off the fact that Hamas won't recognize Israel's existence as no big deal, while bashing America, he praises fair Palestinian elections, and at the same time insists that Palestinians still want a peace agreement. Wait a minute, they elected a terrorist group that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, but they want a peace agreement?! What would that agreement look like? "We the Palestinian people agree to blow the Jews to pieces.... What!? You said a peace agreement! I guess you should have been more specific." Seriously though, if they won't recognize Israel or live side-by-side with them, what kind of agreement could be reached unless the Jews are forced to leave, right?

Carter opens with this:

Innocent Palestinian people are being treated like animals, with the presumption that they are guilty of some crime. Because they voted for candidates who are members of Hamas, the United States government has become the driving force behind an apparently effective scheme of depriving the general public of income, access to the outside world and the necessities of life.

(read "blame America")

Overwhelmingly, these are school teachers, nurses, social workers, police officers, farm families, shopkeepers, and their employees and families who are just hoping for a better life. Public opinion polls conducted after the January parliamentary election show that 80 percent of Palestinians still want a peace agreement with Israel based on the international road map premises. Although Fatah party members refused to join Hamas in a coalition government, nearly 70 percent of Palestinians continue to support Fatah's leader, Mahmoud Abbas, as their president.

First, show me these polls. Secondly, ask the depth question: "what sort of "peace" are you open to?" If the answer is primarily "Jews leave, we get it all", then the watercolors Jimmy Carter is using to paint this picture are lookin' a little runny.

It is almost a miracle that the Palestinians have been able to orchestrate three elections during the past 10 years, all of which have been honest, fair, strongly contested, without violence and with the results accepted by winners and losers. Among the 62 elections that have been monitored by us at the Carter Center, these are among the best in portraying the will of the people.

Okay, and who did they elect? Hamas. Carter goes on to say how it's the fault of Israel that recent peace talks have failed. Then he tells us how Hamas are the good guys:

With all their faults, Hamas leaders have continued to honor a temporary cease-fire, or hudna, during the past 18 months, and their spokesman told me that this "can be extended for two, 10 or even 50 years if the Israelis will reciprocate."

And apparently we're to believe this because

Although Hamas leaders have refused to recognize the state of Israel while their territory is being occupied, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed approval for peace talks between Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. He added that if these negotiations result in an agreement that can be accepted by Palestinians, then the Hamas position regarding Israel would be changed.

Oh, okay. Enough with the Hamas praise, let's get back to bashing America:

Regardless of these intricate and long-term political interrelationships, it is unconscionable for Israel, the United States and others under their influence to continue punishing the innocent and already persecuted people of Palestine.

And then wrap it up with some more brushing off the fact that Hamas won't regonize Israel's existence like it's not really a factor, and go back to blaming everyone else.

Hamas has so far refused to recognize the sovereign state of Israel as legitimate, with a right to live in peace. This is a matter of great concern to all of us, and the international community needs to probe for an acceptable way out of this quagmire. There is no doubt that Israelis and Palestinians both want a durable two-state solution, but depriving the people of Palestine of their basic human rights just to punish their elected leaders is not a path to peace.

Well I'm glad to hear it's of "great concern" to you Jimmy, but I can tell you what the international probe (someting I think you've had a couple too many of) would find: If Palestinian leadership won't recognize Israel's existence, there won't be peace!

It goes on and on, just read the column, it's really not that long.

Others:
A Blog For All, Flopping Aces, Sister Toldjah, Martin's Musings, Blue Crab Boulevard, Freedom for Some, Darleen's Place, In the Bullpen 1, In the Bullpen 2, Hyscience, Decision '08, Keshertalk, Environmental Republican, Captain's Quarters 1, Captain's Quarters 2, Wizbang

 

Over the past few days I'd been seeing "The Sandbox" in the trackbacks of some of the blogs I usually peruse, so I checked out his blog and realized why I hadn't run across his blog before. He's brand new!

I'll withhold the name of the author of The Sandbox at this point, although it's currently all in his "about" page, easily accesible from the home page. But depending on how popular he gets, he may not want a lot of people knowing his full name.

Anyway, The Sandbox is more than just another bloviation station, it's the world viewed through the eyes of an Air Force man who intends to be deployed soon. He's actually written an excellent post that tells his whole path to the military, and hopes to make it a series in which he posts similar stories from other members of the U.S. military.

So what are you still doing here? As you know I'm longwinded (or would that be long.....keyed?), so I'll try to stop rambling now and just let you go check out The Sandbox for yourself and make sure to add a bookmark, as The Sandbox shows a lot of promise to be an important and interesting blog, with a unique perspective. I've added The Sandbox to my blogroll, and I recommend you do the same if you've got a blog.

***UPDATE***
I'm kicking myself for not personally thanking The Sandbox's author for his service, which was one thing I wanted to make sure I did in this post when I set out to write it. Not a good enough excuse, but I can only attribute it to being tired from having been up all night (working my bar gig I do on Saturdays). I don't know how else I could have forgotten the one thing I wanted to say.

So thank you (again, not wanting to have his name out there incase he later would like it to not be fully public) author of The Sandbox for your service, and to all members of the military.

I actually just heard passing mention on TV, that it's National Military Appreciation Month. I think we should appreciate them every day, but I suppose the point of the "month" is to highlight the story, and perhaps gain a little attention by hopefully getting in the headlines, etc. You can learn more from NMAM's homepage.... because you won't learn much from the media.

I just did a quick Yahoo! News search on "Military Appreciation Month" and there are only 16 links, and only one of them has that phrase in the headline. It's an article about Virginia declaring Military Appreciation Month to coincide with National Military Appreciation Month.

At least a Google News search has more, though not much, and the top link isn't a "news" outlet it's a link to a Defense Department Press Release about a McDonald's sponsored event called "Fleet Week USA - A National Salute to America's Heroes", taking place in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. I guess what I'm saying is stuff your fat face with some McDonald's today, to support a company that supports the troops. Plus it's a good excuse to piss off Morgan Spurlock.

 

I was listening to The O'Reilly Factor on TV in the background last night and heard Newt Gingrich mention a new poll that showed Fox News was the most trusted news source. I'm not certain if this is the poll that Newt was talking about, but I did find a write-up on something that sounds similar at Broadcasting & Cable. While this was an internationl poll, this excerpt from the article focused on a question asked of only the Americans involved.

Among U.S. respondents, the most trusted national media were Fox News and CNN, with 11% of respondents naming each, unprompted, as most trusted, followed by ABC (4%), NBC (4%), NPR (3%), CBS (3%), Microsoft/MSN (2%), USA Today (2%), New York Times (2%), CNN.com (1%), Time Magazine (1%), and friends/family (1%).

It's a little disturbing that CNN ranked high enough to tie FNC, but at least they are the leading the pack. Surprisingly, not much love for bloggers and the internet though...

Blogs got the lowest scores for trust at 25%.

TV was also voted the most 'important' news source (56%), with the Internet getting only 9% of the votes.

Read the rest here, and more about the poll via Radio Free Europe, and view the the actual PDF version of the poll (just found it) from BBC/Reuters/Media Center.

In other poll news concerning Fox News Channel, a new study the purports to show that FNC helped elect President Bush. This Richard Morin column in The Washington Post explains.

"Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect," said Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkely and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University.

In Florida alone, they estimate, the Fox effect may have produced more than 10,000 additional votes for Bush -- clearly a decisive factor in a state he carried by fewer than 600 votes.

The column is much more extensive, and I suggest reading the entire thing. It should be noted that the authors of the study say this doesn't imply any right wing bias, and could be simply the result of FNC balancing out the lefty bias that has dominated the medai. The study's findings, which don't seem definitive anyway, aren't about the way anything was reported, just on difference in voting patterns since the launch of the relatively young Fox News Channel. That isn't stopping people like Contact Music, from being vague, and in doing so, giving a dishonest portrayal of the study:

Fox News Channel significantly boosted the Republican Party's share of the popular vote in 2000 and delivered the presidency to George W. Bush, according to a study by Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkeley and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University, reported in today's (Friday) Washington Post. The study concluded that in Florida alone, which Bush carried by fewer than 600 votes, the influence of Fox produced more than 10,000 additional votes for him.

I think most of us would agree that Fox has had a major impact, considering the ratings of it's competitors can only be described as pathetic. There's a reason for FNC's viewership.... No left wing spin that the folks have grown tired of having rammed down their throats, and debate on every issue, letting you see who makes more sense and who's really dealing in facts.

 

***If you're behind on the Pat Kennedy controversy, see my original Thursday post that includes many updates, details, and twists in this matter. So as I give you a quick update and link round-up with brief commentary, know that many things I'm referencing (that you may not be familiar with, from the MSM) can be found in that earlier post, so I won't need to be digging for all those same links again. On with it...

By now I'm sure most of you know that Pat Kennedy celebrated this Cinco De Mayo a little differently than we can assume he usually does. He's announced that he is (again) going to check himself in to the (Cinco De) Mayo Clinic, for addiction to pain pills, after having just been there at Christmas time.

In his statements today (video at Expose the Left), he has once again changed his story, now saying that he doesn't remember anything that happened that night (or morning of Quattro de Mayo):

"I simply do not remember getting out of bed, being pulled over by the police or being cited for three driving infractions," Kennedy said.

But wait a minute Congressman, didn't you just provide this written statement Thursday:

"Last Tuesday, the Attending Physician of the United States Congress treated me for Gastroenteritis. The Attending Physician prescribed Phenergan, an anti-nausea medication, which in addition to treating Gastroenteritis, I now know can cause drowsiness and sedation.

Following the last series of votes on Wednesday evening, I returned to my home on Capitol Hill and took the prescribed amount of Phenergan and Ambien, which was also prescribed by the Attending Physician some time ago and I occasionally take to fall asleep. Some time around 2:45am, I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote. Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication. At that time, I was involved in a one-car incident in which my car hit the security barrier at the corner of 1st and C St., SE. At no time before the incident did I consume any alcohol.

At the time of the accident, I was instructed to park my car and was driven home by the United States Capitol Police. At no time did I ask for any special consideration, I simply complied with what the officers asked me to do.

I have the utmost respect for the United States Capitol Police and the job they do to keep Members of Congress and the Capitol Complex safe. I have contacted the Chief of Capitol Police and offered to meet with police representatives at their earliest convenience as I intend to cooperate fully with any investigation they choose to undertake."

Sounds like you remembered quite a bit, just 24 hours earlier.

The rest of the press conference was whining and begging for sympathy for his "disease", which he claims is an addiction to pain medication, despite the fact that cops smelled alcohol on him, and he was seen at some bars he frequents just a few hours earlier. What's weird is in the intial statement, he says he took two different kinds of pills and immediately shifts to "Some time around 2:45am, I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote." Sounds like someone covering his ass, not wanting to get busted in a lie later on. What happened after you took those pills Patty? Did you lay down to go to sleep? Did you take them at 2:30 and hit the road? When did you take them, and what happened in that time gap?

Again, I think it's very obvious if he was to say "I took the pills and went to bed, then I woke up got in my car and headed for the completely normal 2:45 am vote", he'd be busted, considering the fact that people saw him at the bar. This way his cleverly written statement, while still full of lies, allows him that one "I didn't lie" loophole.

So let's get back to what we know.... First, this Philadelphia Inquirer piece has a paragraph of some underreported details of the actual accident:

In the Capitol Hill accident, police saw Kennedy's car, with no headlights on, swerve into the wrong lane and strike a curb. Kennedy nearly hit a police car, the report said, and did not respond to the officer's efforts to pull over. He continued at a slower speed before hitting a security barrier head-on, the report said.

So he was all over the road, not pulling over for cops, until he slams in to a barrier. Cops arrive, he staggers out smelling like alcohol. The Smoking Gun has the police report, including where the officer checked the box indicating Kennedy was under the influence.

Kennedy tells the police an obvious lie (or a delusion as he would later claim) that he's later for a vote.. AT 2:45 AM! Why? Some speculate he might have had this excuse prepared, because under the constitution (as we've discussed) Congresspeople can't be arrested on the way to work (except for under certain extreme circumstances). Instead of administering field sobriety tests (FSTs) on the obviously impaired (one way or another) Kennedy, the higher ups in the police department clear the scene of low level cops, and two of the higher ups drive the Congressman home! I'm curious why they didn't take him to the all important 2:45 vote though?!

All day Thursday we wait to see a screaming David Gregory from NBC demanding answers outside of Pat Kennedy's office. We're still waiting for that in fact. What we did get was a statement that no alcohol was involved. Later (after the Kennedy people got together to come up with the best possible lie, to stop the bleeding as Pat did even more damage to the family name) another statement was released blaming some pills that can make you drowsy, one that exists only for that purpose. In this statement Kennedy details his day, including taking the pills and then jumps straight in to the car ride (again, no mention of what happened in between, but of course we know this is because the "pills" thing is just a PR lie they came up with). On top of that, we get word that he was at hitting the bars Wednesday night, despite his prior denials.

As the most of America sleeps the Kennedy's come up with a new image for Pat.... Victim of a disease. Friday Pattycakes comes before the camera, a sad a broken man who has an addiction to pain pills and doesn't remember anything about Thursday morning... Blah blah, I have a disease like millions of Americans, I've always been honest (riiiiiight).. Blah blah, poor me, poor me I'm checking back in to rehab (but not steppin' down! I'm a Kennedy damnit!).

So now we have a media who's taken the story to the "poor troubled addict needs help" area, and forgotten all about the real outrage here, which is that this punk got special treatment. Not one of us could do what he did, and have high ranking cops clear out the regular cops, have us park our car and not administer FSTs, and then give us a ride home!!! And where is the left's outrage?! They hammered Limbaugh for months for his pain pill addiction that came after having surgery, and is not that uncommon. Yeah yeah, he was "doctor shopping" supposedly, but the main point is that he's not an elected official!!! He's an entertainer on the radio! You can only vote him out by not listening and giving him poor ratings. Kennedy has had one insane drama and crime after another and he gets away with all of it, why? Because he's a friggin' Kennedy.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe how he's turned himself in to this victim and sympathetic figure and the media will largely buy it and won't dwell the way they did with Rush. And sense he won't do the honorable thing and step down, he'll go away and come back saying "I'm all better", and we'll all have a party for the sober (chuckle) Kennedy.

I caught the late replay of Hannity & Colmes last night and they discussed many of these things (as much as Alan and the liberal guests didn't want to). Alan went so far as to call him a role model, and praise him for his honesty. What?! He's repeatdly changed his story, and isn't owning up to what actually happened, and is now claiming to be the victim of a disease! All this again after getting special treatment for being a Kennedy, rather than being arrested like a normal person.

Michelle Malkin has much more here and here, including a comment from a KOS kid who is actually in agreement that Kennedy, as well as William Jefferson, should resign. Expose the Left has video of CNN's Dana Bash playing right in to Poor Pat's hands.

Back to the point here. This guy basically got away with a crime, with the police actively assisting him! The cops who did this should be fired. Now, despite the obvious, Kennedy has gotten away with this and in all likelyhood can't be prosecuted because the police essentially disposed of the evidence! Fair?!

More:
Flopping Aces, Flap's Blog, The Pretend Pundit, Donkey Stomp, Assorted Babble, Leaning Straight Up, Stop the ACLU 1, Stop the ACLU 2, Right Voices, Wizbang, Superfun Powerhour, Iowa Voice, The Political Pit Bull, The Sandbox, California Conservative 1, California Conservative 2, Stuck on Stupid, Just Barking Mad, Left Wing = Hate, Maggie's Farm, PunditGuy, All Things Conservative, Sister Toldjah

 

Before I get to Sarasota's "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Day", let me give a little update on the investigation in to her cop hitting incident.

I was doing some Google News and Yahoo! News searches, trying to see if there had been any developments in the Cynthia McKinney saga, and didn't find much. All I learned is that some staffers will testify in the investigation, before the grand jury.

I learned a couple other interesting things from this short UPI article... Apparently the McKinney incident wasn't "she hit a cop for doing his job". No no no, it was a "scuffle".

WASHINGTON, April 30 (UPI) -- Several Capitol Hill staffers will testify in the investigation into the scuffle between U.S. Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney, D-Ga., and a Capitol Police officer.

The Washington Times reported that aides to members of Congress from both parties agreed to comply with subpoenas issued for them to testify as witnesses before a Washington grand jury.

McKinney, who faces possible assault charges, has apologized for striking the officer who stopped her as she went around metal detectors at a House office building checkpoint.

A source in the U.S. Attorney's Office told the newspaper that the office considers the scuffle an "ongoing investigation."

Once the grand jury completes its work, the office either will make a statement of its findings or will indict the Georgia Democrat on charges of assaulting a police officer, the newspaper said.

I was also surprised to learn that she "has apologized for striking the officer who stopped her". First off, the way that sentence is written, makes it seem like she specifically went and apologized to the officer. Unless I totally missed that development, I don't think anything remotely close to that happened. What happened was McKinney spent days jumping in front of every camera and microphone she could find to call this cop a racist, and blame the whole incident on racial profiling, rather than a Congresswoman not following protocol, and police officer doing his job.

Now I know she made some kind of "apology" on the house floor (again, after days of smearing the officer), but does that sentence from the UPI piece accurately reflect what she said? Watch the video at Expose the Left, and read the transcript below:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I come before this body to personally express again my sincere regret about the encounter with the capitol hill police. I appreciate my colleagues who are standing with me, who love this institution, and who love this country. There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I have always supported law enforcement and will be voting for H.R. 756, Expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women of the u.S. Capitol police. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and i regret its escalation and i apologize. Thank you, mr. Speaker.

Of course you "regret" it Cynthia, because you'll likely be indicted very soon! And of course their shouldn't have been any physical contact, at least not from you to the officer, but he has every right to physically stop you if you aren't obeying him. If someone was running in there, potentially with a weapon and ignoring the cops, I wouldn't expect the cops to say "excuse me sir, I'd appreciate if you didn't bring that in here" but not dare lay hands on him. I could go on and disect the rest of the "apology", like her claiming to support law enforcment despite her history of problems with the Capitol Police, etc. etc., but you get the point. It was a non-apology, after smearing the cop as a racist.

Now, on to the funny/stupid part. There wasn't much in the way of new developments in that story, so I jumped on McKinney's own Congress web page to see what nuttiness was going on (knowing there wouldn't be any mention of the case, though.) First let me just say, her page looks like a cartoon or something. It looks like it's part of Nick Jr. or something, really weird. Then I noticed something even more odd.... a headline that reads: Sarasota, Florida Names April 8th "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Day"

McKinney Day? I had to see this:

(Sarasota, FL) - Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was in Florida for the Sarasota Film Festival on April 14th, 2006. During her visit she received the key to the city of Sarasota, FL and was doubly honored when the City named April 8th as “Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Day” in Sarasota. McKinney was present for a screening of the film “American Blackout,” which documents her experiences of being de-elected and re-elected.

So let me get this straight, not even two weeks after she punches a police officer for doing his job, the city of Sarasota, FL honors her with her own day simply because she is the subject of documentary that I'm sure leaves out her constant run-ins with Capitol Police? Wow, Sarasota, wow!

Here's the proclamation she was honored with:

It reads:

THE CITY OF SARASOTA PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, Cynthia McKinney, Georgia’s first African-American Congresswoman and the only woman serving in the state’s congressional delegation, has emerged as an internationally renowned advocate for pece, an outspoken leader for human rights, and a determined worker for justice; and

WHEREAS, Cynthia McKinney represents Georgia’s Fourth District, which comprises parts of DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties, two of the most ethnically diverse and populous counties in the fifteen county metropolitan Atlanta area; and

WHEREAS, Cynthia McKinney is an advocate of veterans affairs, co-sponsoring legislation to promote veterans’ health care and to grant work opportunity credits to employers who hire veterans and also introduced a resolution to reaffirm the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that protects the distinction between civilian and military policing; and

WHEREAS, Cynthia McKinney, throughout her terms, currently sits on the Armed Services Committee and the Budget Committee and has been a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, and has worked closely with the Hispanic Caucus and the newly formed Tri-Caucus advocating and legislating for civil rights and the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, and on behalf of the citizens of our community, takes great pride in recognizing April 8, 2006, as

“CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA McKINNEY DAY”

a day of special importance and worthy of the recognition of the citizens of the City of Sarasota.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Sarasota to be affixed this 8th day of April 2006.

Mary Anne Servian, Mayor

Fredd “Glossie” Atkins, Vice Mayor

Billy E. Robinson, City Auditor and Clerk

You can also see the "key to the city" that she received here.

I don't think I could say anything to make this sound any more stupid than it already does. I just want to point how odd it is that this happened April 8th and I've tried doing Google and Yahoo! News searches on "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinny Day", "Cynthia McKinny Day", and "McKinny Day" and didn't find a single article. How is that possible? I even just searched straight regular Yahoo! and there's nothing there either, and my guess is the same holds true for Google.

Previous:
Official Report: Cynthia McKinney Hit Police Officer With Closed Fist
McKinney Apologizes After Smearing Cops, Bodyguard Assaults Reporter
Crazy McKinney Hits Media Circuit With Catch Phrases, While Grand Jury Investigates The Incident
VIDEO: McKinney Interview On Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends
Cynthia McKinney - The Cartoon & Photoshop Files
Diary Of A Mad McKinney. Cynthia McKinney's Insanity Continues...
UPDATE: Racist Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D – GA) Has History Of Altercations With Security
UNHINGED: Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D – GA) Punches Police Officer

 

Bloomberg

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who helped Prime Minister Tony Blair argue the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been replaced, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported, without citing sources.

Blair is reorganizing his Cabinet following bad results in yesterday's local elections, which saw his Labour Party forfeit 254 seats in councils across the country, while the Conservatives gained 250.

Charles Clarke has left his job as Home Secretary a week after announcing his department had allowed 1,023 foreign criminals to leave prison without considering whether they should have been deported, the BBC said. He will return to the backbenches.

Geoff Hoon, Defense Secretary during the Iraq War and now Leader of the House of Commons, will be Secretary of State for Europe, a new Cabinet-level post, the BBC said. Straw will replace him as Leader of the House, responsible for steering legislation through Parliament, the BBC said.

 

***SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR MORE UPDATES***

***UPDATE*** 5/5 8:36 AM CT
Michelle Malkin has a new post up on the Kennedy situation today which includes a question from Influence Peddler:

It also appears now that Kennedy was hitting the bars Wednesday night. I actually heard this mentioned a few hours ago on Fox & Friends, but got sidetracked and forgot to add the update.

***UPDATE, Strange Inconsistency***
I was just thinking about the combination of drugs Kennedy said he was on. He named Phenergan and Ambien. Phenergan is an antihistamine used for allergies, as well as a sleep aid. Ambien is simply a sleep aid. Why would a person take sleep aids before heading to vote in Congress (again, at 2:45 am)? Not that we need this inconsistency to make clear what happened here, but it's pretty interesting that while his initial excuse as he was rushing to get to a vote (obviously bogus), causing the accident. After getting the Kennedy treatment and taken home by police without FSTs being administered, he changes his excuse to "sleep aids made me do is". Is taking sleep aids normal protocol for making house votes? So now all they have to do is convince us that he took the sleep aids, intending to go to bed, but somehow they made him go crazy and think that he had a 2:45 am vote. And you know the rest.

By the way, it's 3:10 AM CT right now, and the Daily KOS still has no mention of the word "Kennedy"; on their home page. Perhaps they've all taken their ambien and hit the roads for an early start to work today.

***END UPDATE, Strange Inconsistency***

Well, at least Congressman Pat Kennedy's accident and cover-up didn't result in the death of a woman, like his father Senator Ted Kennedy's incident did over 35 years ago. But poor young Patrick did have to endure the pain of a free ride home from police, after superiors in the PD stopped those trained in DUI cases from performing sobriety tests, and then sent all other patrol units away from the scene. Must be tough being a Kennedy! More on the intial reporting by Roll Call, via Drudge.

First you have to ask yourself, 'would I have been treated the same way?' after police saw me crash and stumble out of my car, clearly appearing intoxicated? But that's different, Pat Kennedy was in a Rush to get to a vote..... AT 2:45 AM!?!?!? Michelle Malkin has kept a running post with updates on the matter, and points to this Bad Hair Blog post for another theory on the "I'm late for a vote" excuse, besides desperate drunken stupidity:

Late to a vote? One would think that answer showed he was drunk, but he was claiming something else: More like claiming diplomatic Constitutional immunity.

United States Constitution,

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;

Patrick claims he no alcohol prior to the incident.

And if he did, it sure didn't affect his memory of the Constitution.

It seems possible that he anticipated such an incident happening eventually and may have had this planned excuse ready. One might even speculate that stern warnings from daddy might have gone something like - "People like myself have done a lot of damage to the Kennedy family name and what you've been doing is just inviting more trouble. I know you're not going to stop, so when and if you ever get caught, claim you were on the way to a vote and you'll get off scott free, because it's right there in Section 6 of the Constitution."

Of course it's all speculation as to whether or not Kennedy was trying to make use of this loophole or not.

Michelle Malkin also notes that this same Pat Kennedy was in an accident less than 3 weeks ago, in his home state of Rhode Island, in which, judging by his hand written police statement, he seems to have been drunk as well. Michelle has posted the police documents obtained by Howie Carr, all of which you can find in this PDF document from Carr's site. I've pasted a screen shot of Kennedy's written statement (page 6 of the PDF):

Look, I'm the first to admit my handwriting is terrible, as is many other people's. But come on, look at that thing!

What I find interesting about some of the reporting is that many in the MSM are referring to this as "early Thursday morning". Yeah, that's technically right, but is it accurately telling the story? Early morning is like 5-7 AM, not 2:45! Expose the Left has video of a Hardball segment on the incident from this afternoon, in which host Chris Matthews opens with: "Well we begin right now with breaking news from Capitol Hill, about an incident early this morning...." He then asks the guest to talk about the incident from "this morning".

Need another example? Let's see how the AP is covering it (via ABC):

WASHINGTON May 4, 2006 (AP)— Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated. Kennedy said he had taken sleep medication and a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness.

You'll notice that this is an updated story, containing the excuse Kennedy is using in his most recent statement, issued just a few hours ago (prescribed drugs, not alcohol). So the AP can't use the excuse, "we rushed the story out as it broke, so we couldn't change that sentence to be more of an honest reflection of the circumstances". "Early Thursday", is again technically accurate, but it's a totally dishonest portrayal of the actual incident.

As I said, Kennedy has released an updated "statement", trying to make excuses:

Later, however, he issued a longer statement saying the attending physician for Congress had prescribed Phenergan on Tuesday to treat Kennedy's gastroenteritis.

Kennedy said he returned to his Capitol Hill home on Wednesday evening after a final series of votes in Congress and took "prescribed" amounts of Phenergan and Ambien, another prescribed drug that he occasionally takes to fall asleep.

"Some time around 2:45 a.m., I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote," his second statement said. "Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication."

Kennedy appeared to be intoxicated when he crashed his Ford Mustand into a barrier on Capitol Hill early Thursday morning, said Louis P. Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

(satire)Kennedy then tossed a few back and said, "Man, it's great to be a Kennedy" (followed by a laugh like that of Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies.) Meanwhile the mainstream media is frantically digging for this weeks "Bush scandal" in an effort to get negative headlines back aimed at the President and Republicans. Frantic NY Times reporters are digging through their stash of Abu Ghraib photo hoping they can find something new, after 60+ stories of repeating the same old story.(/satire>

On another note, I wonder what would be done had this been Jeb Bush or something? I can see the conspiracy theory crowd coming out with all of their Illuminati claims, for why he was driven home by police rather than treated like any other citizen. "They're forced to protect him because he's part of the dynasty, and is the next step in world domination plotted out for hundreds of years by the Bush's predecessors.

Anyway, my real prediction on this matter is this: Nothing will happen. Despite officers asking that they be allowed to complete their investigation, it won't happen. Even on the off chance it does, it won't matter because "the evidence" was taken care of when they drove Pattycakes home and didn't give him the usual field sobriety test (FST), that the rest of the public would get. I suppose the only way we could get the Capitol Hill Police to do anything is if we were to send Cynthia McKinney down there to slap them around a bit.

In an added twist, Dan Riehl notes that Kennedy had another recent accident, but this time involving a hammer rather than a vehicle. Riehl also wonders why it was so hard to find the story of Kennedy's earlier car accident. I think we all know why.

I also find it interesting that a quick "find" (ctrl+F or edit/find) of the word "Kennedy" reveals there is not one instance on the DailyKOS home page right now. Hmmm....

***UPDATE***
Flopping Aces remembers when the same Kennedy settled out of court, after shoving a female security guard at LAX a few years back. It would seem that the House Democrats have a problem with authority figures and a pattern of violence towards them.

***UPDATE***

More Pat Kennedy controversies, courtesy of Wikipedia:
* Kennedy has acknowledged being treated for cocaine use during his teenage years.[2]

* In 2000, Kennedy was accused of pushing a security guard at LAX. City prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring criminal charges against him and he paid an undisclosed civil settlement to the alleged victim almost two years later.[3] His critics have called this incident a "triple hate crime", as the security guard was an elderly black woman.[4]

* In 2000, Atlantic Navigation Company of Mystic, CT, claimed that a boat they rented to Kennedy was found abandoned off Martha's Vineyard and required $28,000 to repair. [5]

* In 2000, the Coast Guard was dispatched to Kennedy's yacht after he and his date became embroiled in an argument on his yacht off Martha's Vineyard.[6]

* In 2003, drew fire from his critics when he declared that "I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." [7]

Others:
Joust The Facts, Iowa Voice, The Sandbox, Stop the ACLU, Pundit Guy, Point Five, Donkey Stomp, Hot Air, The Political Pit Bull, Left Wing = Hate, Leaning Straight Up, A Blog For All, A Lady's Ruminations, Texas Rainmaker, Assorted Babble, GOP and the City, Wizbang, Just Barking Mad, Betsy Newmark, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Gina Cobb, Confederate Yankee, Say Anything, Conservababes, Boots and Sabers, Slobokan's Site, New England Republican, California Conservative, Right Wing Sparkle, Right on the Right, Unaccountable Liberals, No Agenda, Captain's Quarters

 

It's too bad I'm moving out of Nashville on May 21, because I'll miss a big "Hillary for President" push on May 23. Wish I could have been their to photograph the lost souls for you all.

A movement to draft Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president aims to prove Democrats can win in Southern states, and that's why they're launching their national campaign in Nashville later this month.

The group, called Hillarynow.com, thinks she can appeal to the country-music and NASCAR-loving crowd associated with Southern towns such as Nashville, said Bob Kunst, the Miami Beach-based organizer.

Of course this is an insane dream, which is why Hillary isn't involved, and just a bunch of out of touch supporters think they're on to something. All I can say is that if they convince Hillary that this is an angle she needs to work, I would learn from DNC Chairman Dean's mistakes and steer clear of using lines like:

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,"

Not only with those Confederate flag wavers see through your pandering BS, but then you'll have to answer to the shakedown brothers and all their millions of followers when they call for a public apology for your racially insensitive remarks.

Also, if she's truly hoping to score some votes in the south, she might also choose a better line than the last Democratic Presidential Candidate (Kerry):

"I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA,"

"The whole point is to go where we're not expected," Kunst said.

The national kickoff will be a May 23 fundraiser for Hillarynow.com at a Germantown coffee shop, Enchanted Gingerbread. About 200 Tennesseans are expected to attend, Kunst said.

Hillarynow.com bills itself as the oldest and most active organization in support of her presidency. Another group, votehillary.org, is based in Chester, Va.

Hillarynow.com has raised about $35,000 and has between 10,000 and 15,000 people who have signed up online to support Clinton as the nation's first woman president, Kunst said.

These people ought to rethink where they want to invest their energy. Poll after poll shows that we don't want Hillary. Remember the Gallup poll that showed 51% definitely wouldn't vote for her, and only 16% definitely would? Rasmussen has an updated version that seems a little better (h/t GOP BLoggers), but still not great, and of course the questions are always asked differently from poll to poll. Add that to the fact that polls continue to show her getting destroyed by Republican hopefuls John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

And no article on Hillary's possible run for the presidency would be complete with out the obligatory "Commander in Chief" reference:

"I think we've started to condition ourselves to the idea of having a woman president," said O'Hanlon, who cited as one factor the television show "Commander in Chief," which stars Geena Davis as the nation's first female president. ABC this week yanked the drama from its May lineup.

Proving my point that this failure of a show was created for no other purpose than to "condition" us for a Hillary run. For more on the show's failure and how idiotic the "it's time for a woman" crowd is, see my earlier post.

If you didn't already think this whole southern Hillary draft was ridiculous, perhaps you'd like to know what sort of activities the organizer has been involved in recently:

Kunst, an activist on many issues, has shown up in Tennessee before, once to protest the United States' embargo against Cuba and another time to attend "Gay Day" in Rhea County. •

Read the rest of the Tennessean article here.

As always, I have to add that I hope Hill does get the nomination, because as far as we can tell at this point, she seems as unelectable as Dean.

 

Unless part of your daily news intake includes Your World with Neil Cavuto or the right side of the blogosphere, you're probably totally unaware of what I'm about to tell you. If you're part of the "oil companies are gouging us" crowd (yes, I'm talking to you O'Reilly, this is a no spin zone), you may want to rethink who you are pointing fingers at and ask who's really getting their gouge on. We know that oil companies make approximately $0.080-0.09 per gallon of gasoline sold. That's right, about 8-9 cents per gallon. If that's "gouging", what would we call it if the amount were, on a national average, 5 times that amount? TAXES!

Let's have a look at how much we're all paying per gallon in taxes in our respective states, shall we?

The national average of taxes per gallon, when state, federal, and all other taxes are included is 45.9 cents! Again, more than 5 times what the oil companies are profiting per gallon. Some states are more, some are less. New York happens to be the state with the highest gas taxes, totally 62.9 cents per gallon, while Alaska's total is 26.4. See the following graphic for the same numbers as the previous, but in highest to lowest (versus alphabetical) format:

I'm still waiting on Chuck Schumer to call for an investigation in to this... I'm sure he'll be on it any day now though, right?

I obtained these figures from the American Petroleum Institute. You can find this information and more from API on what you pay in gasoline taxes, in this PDF document. I would also suggest poking around this page on API's site for more information. Lot's of interesting comparisons of earnings to other industries and other statistics the "gouge" pushing media doesn't report.

Previous:
Oil: Who Has Plans & Who Doesn't, And Finger Pointing Hypocrites

 

A while back I posted that American television viewers voted to impeach both ABC's Commander In Chief and NBC's The West Wing. Some time later, after some executive changes, ABC decided to give the show another shot. An all too excited commenter tipped me off to the turn of events, but didn't note the horrible ratings and the obvious fact that the show wouldn't last.

As was predicted, this pro-Hillary propoganda has been impeached, and likely won't see the light of day again.

LOS ANGELES, May 2 (UPI) -- ABC TV has put an abrupt term limit on its freshman drama, "Commander in Chief."

The network Tuesday announced it was pulling the Geena Davis series for the rest of May sweeps and running the newsmagazine "Primetime" in its 10 p.m. Thursday slot for the final three weeks of the season, Zap2it.com reported.

The series started as one of the most-watched in the fall and Davis won a Golden Globe for her portrayal of the first female U.S. president.

However, two extended breaks and behind-the-scenes changes as well as a schedule move from Tuesday to Thursday all contributed to a deep slide in ratings.

"Commander's" three Thursday night shows have averaged about 7.5 million viewers, which means half the viewers who tuned in during the fall are now focused elsewhere, Zap2it.com said.

ABC said it would probably air the final three episodes sometime during the summer.

Why is UPI running PR for this POS show? They list of a bunch of excuses for why the show failed, when the fact is, no one wanted to watch the stupid show!

Despite the show failing, a group called The White House Project has given Geena Davis an award, apparently for promoting women in leadership (though this AP article wasn't clear).

I stumbled upon this article from a link at Drudge that read: Geena Davis Honored for Role As President at UN. All I can gather is that this little award show took place at the UN, because I can't find anything that shows this group is linked to them, and the AP article puts "United Nations" where it would usually say the location of a city.

So, UN supported or not, Davis and the show's creater both got ridiculous awards, and had a bunch of (typical) idiotic statements for the press (sample below) .

"So many countries have had a female head of state before us," she told the 500 guests at a dinner in the U.N. Delegates Dining Room. "So it is certainly time."

The award was presented by The White House Project, a non-profit organization which works to promote women's voting, political participation and leadership, with a goal of putting a woman in the White House.

"Every interviewer eventually says, `Do you think we will see a female president in our lifetime?', Davis said.

"I think it's appalling that we haven't yet. The crime is not that it's taken so long, but why haven't we done it yet?" she said to loud applause from the predominantly female audience that included Martha Stewart and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

It's "certainly time"? It's "appalling" that it hasn't happened and a "crime" that it's taken so long? WHAT!? How about "it's time..... when we have a woman who gets her party's nomination, and wins an election!!!" Yeah, let's just have a woman President because a bunch of feminists say "it's time", not because there is one qualified who went through the election process and won!!! This doesn't rise to the level of affirmative action, but it's along those lines, and I find it equally annoying that people have this mindset.

If you'd like to let The White House Project know how idiotic they are, contact them via their web page here.

 

If you haven't seen President Bush's performance at the White House Correspondent's dinner, I've got the video here. He and his impersonator were hilarious, I think we can all agree. Though I think with better writers it could have been even funnier, but it was definitely still great.

Sadly we couldn't say the same for the usually funny Stephen Colbert. As I said in this post, not only was he out of line at an event that is supposed to be "all in good fun", he was just not funny. Also, like I said, it isn't a partisan thing that he wasn't funny, it was a humor thing. He just simply had poorly written jokes. I don't recommend wasting this much time, but if you care to see Colbert totally bomb, the performance can be viewed in the three segments at YouTube (1, 2, and 3.)

Of course that's all old news now, but what continues to shock me, is how the left has made him their new mascot. There are countless message boards all over the internet filled up with "Colbert has huge balls", "my hero", etc. etc. etc. You can find them if you're looking, but I'd rather not send them any traffic, but rest assured they're out there. Now, I expected liberals to be pleased with Colbert insulting the President, just a few feet away... but I never thought they would be treat him like a God (yes some of them are even calling him that.) It's just insane how all of these (clearly mostly college kids) are falling all over themselves to worship him for being such a disrespectful and unfunny puke.

The most surprising thing of all, though, is that people thought he was funny. HE WAS NOT FUNNY! Yes, he usually is... Even on Strangers with Candy if you've ever caught that very strange show. But I don't know who wrote these jokes, but it was just terrible. Not to mention, I can't say as I've seen someone get through a joke and realize they told it wrong and have to retell it... That was just embarassing.

But back to the worshippers, which is why I am writing this post. Like I said, I'd rather not link to the dozens of message boards I've seen (though I'm sure it's really in the thousands), but I do want to link you to the most idiotic site on the net - the newly launched Thank You Stephen Colbert. This ridiculous site currently boasts over 34,000 comments "thanking" Colbert (I guess for being unfunny and out of line?). What a pointless and idiotic site. I just can't even put in to words how pathetic and just... stupid this thing is. How about you 34k libs put down the bong and get out to vote next time, instead of making a Colbert worship blog that exists for no reason, other than to thank him for that pathetic display he put on at the Correspondent's dinner.

Hands down, Thank You Stephen Colbert wins this week's Moonbat Award.

 

Remember the "Dubai Ports Deal" controversy? Well it looks like we're set for round two.... Or are we?

I just ran across this this New York Times article, that explains the situation. After reading it, I realized it was actually written last Thursday, so where was the news? Did everyone else catch this but me?

WASHINGTON, April 27 — President Bush is expected on Friday to announce his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft, say two administration officials familiar with the terms of the deal.

But his action is almost certain to attract scrutiny in Congress, because of the political furor that erupted over the administration's approval of a deal earlier this spring that would have given another Dubai-owned company, Dubai Ports World, leases to operate several American port terminals through its acquisition of a British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

So where was the outrage and weeks of non-stop coverage, and Democrats going to ports for photo ops and press conferences? Even the Republicans were in a tissy over the "ports deal", that if you recall wound up not going through because of all the political pressure. I do always feel the need to point out that the "ports deal", wasn't some sort of deal where companies bid on the deal and Bush gave it to Arabs. It was simply that the Brits sold a company to a UAE government owned company. This new "deal" is the same situation.

In this case, the plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

Because the plants make turbine blades for tanks and aircraft, the deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which sent it on to Mr. Bush himself for a decision, a step used only when the potential security risks or political considerations are particularly acute.

Administration officials alerted Congress that the deal would go through the committee's review process in an effort to head off the kind of public debate that surrounded the ports deal.

First off, why are the British selling all of their companies to the UAE? Secondly, like with the ports it doesn't seem like we're going to be having a bunch of Muslim clerics taking over operations, so I'm not sure what the objections might be. I mean, if we had a bunch of American companies in a bidding war, trying to get the takeover deal, that would be one thing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For those who use the "no foreign ownership" argument, I have to ask why they haven't had a problem with the British ownership?

Obviously I'm not in favor of Arabs owning this company. Quite frankly, I'm not in favor of too many things as they relate to Arabs period. But this sounds like a perfectly legit deal, and unless we've got an American company wanting to takeover instead, what are you going to do? I'm just not clear on what the difference is between this an the ports though? Why haven't we heard the same outrage, or seen the media coverage?

I understand that with the ports, we were talking about the security risk (i.e. the ability to sneak a nuke in inside a container), but by all accounts operations wouldn't have changed. The security situation, as it pertains to the nations ports, is already a joke... but it wasn't going to be a funnier one under Dubai ownership. From what I'm able to gather, the only difference here is that the administration more thoroughly investigated the deal's implications before deciding to sign off on it.

Representative John Barrow, Democrat of Georgia, likened the Doncasters deal to "outsourcing" part of the nation's industrial-military complex.

But Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and one of the foremost critics of the ports deal, said on Thursday that he would not necessarily have a problem this time around, in large part because the White House had given the deal a thorough review.

"It's a significant improvement over what happened before," Mr. King said. "It's been much more thorough, much more detailed."

As I said, that article was written last Thursday, and stated that the President would sign off on Friday. According to this International Herald Tribune piece, he apparently did, and again with surprisingly little outrage.

Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat of New York who has been a leading opponent of the failed deal that would have given Dubai Ports World control of major U.S. port operations, said he would not oppose the purchase of Doncasters by Dubai International Capital. But another lawmaker, Representative John Barrow, a Democrat of Georgia, said he wanted more details.

Wait a minute.... Schumer supports this deal? Perhaps we need to take another look at it.

U.S. Army Secretary Francis Harvey said the Army had recommended approval of the deal even though it normally preferred to have more than one source for the parts it buys.

"We have British firms, we have French firms, we have Japanese firms" as suppliers, he said. "I don't have concern."

Alright, I guess if you say it's okay.

This time, the administration briefed some lawmakers, and the White House also sent a classified report about its decision on the deal to House and Senate leaders on Friday.

Schumer said Friday that the Doncasters' deal was different from the ports saga because it was carefully considered and involved products - not services possibly easier to sabotage.

House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, said his own staff review indicated the Doncasters deal was okay. "Numerous American companies" could make the tank components that Doncasters makes, Hunter said.

I find it hard to believe that briefing lawmakers is the only reason this thing seems to be going off without a hitch. Just seems weird after the shocking amount of outrage and media coverage of the ports deal.

I still don't know why we never heard any noise in Washington about a foreign company running all operations at Indianapolis Airport or the Dubai owned cargo terminal at JFK. Wonder if if it has anything to do with those deals not going through under President Bush, and not being as juicy for politic playing.

Previous:
Harold Ford Jr. Lies About Ports In Campaign Ad In Bid For U.S. Senate Seat
BREAKING: Dubai Ports World Will Transfer Port Operations To United States Entity
Foreign Company Runs Indianapolis Airport. Left Ignores As Deal Wasn't Under Bush.
Dubai Basher Clinton "Didn't Know" About Dubai Lover Clinton's Ties
What Is The Clinton Machine Up To? Hillary Opposes Port Deal, But Bill Helping UAE!
Hillary Clinton Caught Lying About Ports...
Saudi Arabia - Gore Slams Bush Treatment Of Arabs. Wait, I thought Bush Was "In Cahoots" With The Saudis?

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

"A Day Without Immigrants" has arrived. Sadly it's not as good as it sounds. Instead of being a good day, like it sounds, in which we ship a bunch of illegal immigrants back to their home countries, it's a day in which they intend to flood the streets in yet another series of massive protests, instead of going to work and school and they are boycotting American goods. Sadly, but not surprisingly, many Democrats are backing this behavior and the California Senate went so far as to pass a resolution supporting it!

My hope, though I doubt it will happen, is that some of the companies hiring these people will straighten up their acts and fire everyone who doesn't show up to work and perhaps May 2 will be the beginning of a real time without (or at least with less) illegal immigrants. Obviously that's wishfull thinking.

I'll probably be sleeping for most of the day's events, so for me it truly will be a day without them. I suggest following Michelle Malkin's blog, and probably the new Hot Air vlog/internet broadcast as well for blogging throughout the day. Michelle tends to be on top of these type of events, so I suspect that will be the place to go to see what's really going on (as opposed to what the MSM will be showing us. She noted the other day how the Dallas Morning News is doing less reporting, and more promoting of the illegal alien celebration.

Incase your favorite MSM outlet hasn't filled you in, let's get you caught up on the goals of those taking part in today's protests (via Reuters):

Pro-immigration activists say a national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood America's streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as it debates reform.

Such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all Latinos were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle America.

"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it weighs the issue.

"We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)," Rodriguez said. "That is the message that is going to be played out across the country on May 1."

I've got a better idea amigo... How about instead we block off the streets with National Guard, direct your little march towards the border and "guide you" back home?! Seriously though, it's really sad that cops are helpless, when they should be just sitting there with a bunch of school buses and thousands of handcuffs arresting any illegal in attendance, and give us "A Day With A Few Thousand Less Illegals".

At least some people are doing something productive:

Opponents of illegal immigration spent the weekend building a fence to symbolize their support of a secure border. About 200 volunteers organized by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California worked on a 6-foot barbed-wire fence along a quarter-mile stretch of rugged terrain near the U.S.-Mexico border about 50 miles east of San Diego.

Let's keep it going. What's sad is the silent majority remains.... silent. I fear we will remain silent and passive about this until one of these events (that I suspect will only continue and grow) gets out of hands and there is some kind of violence or riot.

These people aren't here "for America", they're here, understandably because their country sucks and they need money for their families. But they are marching with Mexican flags, many with a bunch of rhetoric about "taking back" land for Mexico, etc. They're even trying to change the national anthem.

One of these days all of this anti-Americanism, in your face protests, and demands for "rights" from people who don't belong here, make exponentially greater amounts of money than they could in Mexico and have an exponentially higher quality of living than in Mexico; are going to get out of hand and tick off the wrong people. Hopefully something can be done before violence erupts, but I doubt it. As I said, I believe these will grow while we sit quietly until something terrible happens and we're going to have mayhem.

As I was about to rap this up I see Hot Air has already begun their coverage. Head over now to check out today's Vent with Michelle Malkin, and stay tuned throughout the day.

One more thing.... If you hadn't heard, to counter the anti-American boycott, some are doing extra shopping today and calling it Conservative Shopping Day.

Mac Johnson closes that piece this way:

Lastly, be sure to make note of which businesses can still function on a day without illegal aliens, so that you can patronize them everyday for a long time. Let’s turn the day without illegal aliens into an everyday thing.

TO THE WAL-MART, COMRADES!

This will be an interesting experiment for me. I do need to grab a few things at Kroger and Walgreens later, and I'm on a side of town that is right in the middle of really nice and mini-Mexico. Those two stores are closer to the nice area. But the post office I need to go to, and Walmart are just a few miles north and I instantly become a minority. I need a bulb for one of my fog lights and to pick up a few other things, and hope to get everthing at Walmart. I'll be interested to see what the worker situation is over there.

Also a quick note about that Kroger I mentioned. I tend to shop at like 3 am because it's so much easier to get a ton of groceries in a short amount of time when you're the only one there. I always noticed a dozen or so Mexicans stocking shelves every time. Not knowing their status, I didn't have a problem except when I ever had to ask a question like, "where's the powder Gatorade", and all I gut was shrugged shoulders... Not because they didn't know, but because they didn't have a clue what I had said. I would repeat the question and they would awkwardly chuckly and point at their ears and mouth and mumble something like "I no English".

Interestingly enough, I went in one time, and within a minute I was like "whoa, where did all the mexicans go"? It was like when I used to stock shelves in a grocery store back in Vermont... Just a bunch of late teens and early twenties white guys. I never thought about the reason, but as I was checking out and shooting the breeze with the regular cashier (previously, seemed to be the only white/English speaking person there) he mentioned how crazy it was in there that week because, fearing an INS sweep all of the area Krogers dumped their illegals.

***UPDATE***
Reverse Vampyr has posted a great blog roundup, which includes the following list he found at 760 KFMB, via Rick Roberts, and provides us with an in depth look in to what the illegals are really doing here (psssst, it's not just picking our produce and passing the savings on to us). Note that most of these statistics are for the Los Angeles area, and they certainly very from city to city:

Not everyone breaking into America is coming here to pick lettuce and fulfill the American dream.

Here are some facts you should know:

40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.
http://www.cis.org/

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Just thought you should know.

Don't expect this to be the top of the news tonight...

As I said, Reverse Vampyr has compiled a great blog round-up, so check out what everyone else is saying on this "Day With Too Many Immigrants":
Ace of Spades HQ, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Basil's Blog, Beth's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Blue Star Chronicles, California Conservative, Chez Diva, Conservatve Outpost, Donkey Stomp, Euphoricreality.net, Expose The Left, Florida Cracker, Hot Air, Lone Wacko, National Review, The Nose On Your Face, Political Pit Bull, Publius Rendezvous, The Real Ugly American, Saintknowitall, Sandbox Blog, Say Anything, Slapstick Politics, Super Fun Power Hour, Texas Rainmaker, Thunder Run, Wizbang

I particularly recommend the Hot Air day long live blogging post here. Flopping Aces has a similar post, with a lot of live blogged information and video.

More blogging:
Small Town Veteran, Iowa Voice, Webloggin, Kokonut Pundits, Traction Control, Conservative Outpost, A Blog For All, Mike's Noise, Severe Writer's Block, Ramblings of an Ordinary Guy, Latino Issues, Beyond Borders, Where I Stand, Flap's Blog, Don't Go Into The Light, Small Dead Animals

Quick Update
Bias? What Bias? Look at the pictures selected for this AP piece. A giant American flag, little hispanic children surrounded by American flags... Where are the pictures of the thousands of Mexican flags? Where are the pictures of those holding signs claiming that the southwest belongs to Mexico and that they will take it back?

Previous:
California Senate Votes To Support May 1 Illegal Immigrant / Anti-American Boycott Day
Illegals Show Love For America By Trying To "Dent" Economy
"National Illegal Alien Day" Roundup
UPDATE: More From Sunday's Illegal Immigrant Protest In Dallas
National Illegal Alien Day Is Here!!! Work Walk Outs And American Boycotts?
Hillary Clinton's Crazy Comparison Of The Day! Howard Dean's Got Some Competition!
Why Are McCain And Hillary Clinton Holding Hands With ILLEGAL Immigrants?!
Illegal Aliens Hold Massive Protest In Chicago.
Mexico: "Let my people...in" - Demanding More Immigration!?

 

Newly appointed White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has said that the administration plans to get their "mojo" back. Too.... many..... Austin Powers jokes.... can't decide..... Oh well, enjoy this photoshop (click for full size):

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's time for the White House to go on offense and "get our mojo back." Josh Bolten said Sunday in his first interview since taking over as the president's chief of staff.

"What the change does provide is an opportunity for the White House to step back, refresh, re-energize at a time when we're 5 1/2 years into an administration - normally a slow point, a low point, in many administrations - and a chance for us to get our mojo back, to go back more on the offensive and to get people within the White House to look at our operations, re-energize them for the next six months up through the election, the next 1,000 days through the end of this president's term," Bolten said.

More from the AP...

********THIS JUST IN***********

We're getting reports in that the President has in fact recovered his mojo.... what?... yes... yes we can now confirm that, President Bush has his mojo back. Yeah baby!

More:
The Moderate Voice