Friday, March 31, 2006

Another Democrat Nutter

Earlier this week, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia hit a Capitol Hill police officer after she refused to go through a metal detector. And guess what, she's not sorry:

She has refused to apologize in a statement and a brief on-camera interview...

Asked on-camera Thursday by WSB-TV of Atlanta whether she intended to apologize, McKinney refused to comment. A news conference scheduled for Friday morning was canceled. She issued a statement late Wednesday saying she regretted the confrontation.

"I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, and I appreciate the work that they do. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now," she said in the statement on her Web site.

If you're so appreciative, Rep. McKinney, then why on earth would you hit one of these police officers? What could possibly possess you to do such a thing?

Well, in very predictable fashion, her lawyers are saying she's just another victim of the system:
A lawyer for Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, says she was "just a victim of being in Congress while black..."

Her lawyer, James W. Myart Jr., said, "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin."

To play the race card in this situation is completely absurd. Anyone who is not specifically recognized as a member of Congress is required to pass through a metal detector, whether or not it is a hassle to them. The safety of Congressional members is the top priority for Capitol Hill Police, and they're not going to allow anyone to avoid the security checkpoint merely because they don't want to.

To try and blow this situation so out of proportion by calling it a race issue only exposes the fault of Rep. McKinney. This isn't a national crisis of police brutality toward black America, it is an isolated incident with an angry Congresswoman who was angered by the fact that she wasn't recognized by a security guard.

That being said, she struck a police officer. Anyone who strikes a law enforcement official --I don't care who they are-- should be arrested and imprisoned. There is simply no excuse for attacking an officer. None.

Nancy Pelosi has urged people to "not make a big deal of this." Excuse me, but hitting a police officer is no small offense. I stand by House Speaker Dennis Hastert in asking, "How many officers would have to be punched before it becomes a big deal?"

Iranian Nuclear Dreams Come Ever Closer To Reality

Earlier today Iran continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities when the country tested its newest missile delivery system. And guess what? This one is undetected by radar:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on Friday successfully test fired a home-made missile which can evade radar, state television reported.

“Iran successfully test fired a home-made Fajr-3 missile,” Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted as saying on state television.

The missile was tested as part of a week of naval wargames that started on Friday and were due to take place in the Gulf and Sea of Oman. Previous models of the Fajr range of missiles have been described as a land-based weapons system for use against ships.

“This missile, with the capacity of evading radar, can attack several targets simultaneously,” he said, adding the missile was newly developed.

As the international community continues to sit on its hands, Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear capabilities. It seems obvious enough that a nuclear Iran would be a very, very bad thing. But with the unwillingness of the U.N. to take any serious action, will the United States be again forced to step up to the plate and end the problem?

ABC Suspends John Green

The executive producer of Good Morning America Weekend has been suspsended for one month in response to the release of his personal emails by The Drudge Report.

It's always fun when supposedly objective journalists get exposed for the agenda driven reporting they so often do.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Boehner's Response

to the Dems new "security" plan is 100% on the mark:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today on the "security" agenda offered by Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):

"The Democrats' years of negligence in addressing the real safety and security needs of the American people provide a very clear choice between Republicans and Democrats on security issues.

"While Democrats have openly advocated cutting and running from our efforts to support democracy in Iraq, Republicans continue to build upon our strong record on national security by funding our troops fighting terror around the world and supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

"While Democrats seem more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the American people, Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement the tools necessary to combat terrorism, protect our citizens, and secure our communities.

"While Democrats focus more on protecting the rights of illegal immigrants than enforcing our immigration laws, Republicans have voted to secure our borders, give law enforcement new tools to enforce our immigration laws, and help prevent terrorist and criminal aliens from moving freely throughout our society.

"The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed the Patriot Act, opposed REAL ID legislation, and opposed efforts to strengthen and secure our borders. And they remain unable and unwilling to articulate a cohesive strategy for supporting our troops and winning the War on Terror.

"When it comes to national security, their answer is the same as it is for everything else: no. A media stunt will not eclipse their record of obfuscation and neglect on national and border security."

This is the kind of thing that will win elections for Republicans. It's time to start seeing more GOP leaders come out with statements such as these. Let the American public know why a vote for the Democrats is a vote against national security.

(HT: Hugh Hewitt)

The U.N.'s Iran Resolution

No specific details yet, but the U.N. has come up with its plan for ending Iranian nuclear ambitions:
The five U.N. Security Council permanent members reached agreement on Wednesday on how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions after concessions were made to Russia and China, Britain announced.

"Our colleagues in the P-5 (permanent five) have reached an agreement on a text," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters. The five are the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

The full 15-member council considers the issue later on Wednesday and could formally approve the statement, hours before ministers of the five powers and Germany meet in Berlin.

I hope that the plan includes sanctions, at the very least. That way Iran would be at least forced into a cost-benefit analysis. If the U.N. only offers more "you better stop that" rhetoric, Iran will not be shaken. A stern word and a wag of the finger will do nothing, whereas a real economic threat has at least a chance of impacting that nation.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The Senate Weakens Led By Sen. John McCain

The House recently passed a immigration bill recognizing that protecting the nation's borders is a serious matter of national security. It included strong provisions for protecting our borders, including the use of a fence along the Mexican border, like the one that has been very successful in San Diego.

However, the Senate Judiciary Committee stripped the bill of its strength before pushing it through to the Senate:
A key Senate panel broke with the House's get-tough approach to illegal immigration yesterday and sent to the floor a broad revision of the nation's immigration laws that would provide lawful employment to millions of undocumented workers while offering work visas to hundreds of thousands of new immigrants every year.

With bipartisan support, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 6 to side with President Bush's general approach to an immigration issue that is dividing the country, fracturing the Republican Party and ripening into one of the biggest political debates of this election year. Conservatives have loudly demanded that the government tighten control of U.S. borders and begin deporting illegal immigrants. But in recent weeks, the immigrant community has risen up in protest, marching by the hundreds of thousands to denounce what they see as draconian measures under consideration in Washington.

This is a stance that shows no concern for national security, and does not take the issue seriously. By abandoning the key provisions that made the House bill a strong statement in support of a serious national security policy, the Senate version of the bill is weak and apathetic.

Here's what Sen. John McCain had to say about the Senate version of the bill, that he is co-backing with Sen. Teddy Kennedy:
"We are eager, once the Senate passes this bill, to sit down and talk with them, but there are certain fundamental principles which we simply cannot compromise on," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who cosponsored the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee largely intact last night. "It has to be a comprehensive approach. As we all know, just building walls and hiring more border patrols are not the answers to our immigration problem."

Just as Sen. McCain has been wrong on all of the crucial issues of this past year, from the Gang of 14 crumble to legislative efforts with Sen. Feingold, he is wrong again now. John McCain is not a party man. He hasn't been for some time, and his record confirms this.

In every moment of crisis when the GOP needs him to step up and represent the party, he has backed off and pursued a compromise across the aisle. Every move he makes is calculated with his political future in mind. I guess he figures that if you step lightly enough you won't step on anybody's toes, and then everyone will like you. That way when the elections roll around you can sell yourself as a centrist who appeals to everyone.

But the truth is that the GOP base sees through these efforts, and will treat McCain accordingly.

It's time that the Senate Republicans step up to the plate and end a potential political disaster by joining the House in a strong stance on immigration that shows a concern for the nation's national security. But don't expect this effort to be led by Sen. McCain. He's always thinking about his own future above what's best for the party, and what's best for the country.

Joel Stein Does It Again

Remember "I don't support our troops" Joel Stein of The Los Angeles Times? Well he's at it again:
But I kind of like the Mexicans. I find it hard to hate people who clean my house and serve delicious, cheap food. If the Germans could learn to dust and make a decent taco, I think we would have stopped making Holocaust movies a while ago.

If you were interested in creating a guidebook on how to best marginalize yourself with the American public, you would want to ask Joel Stein to author it.

Joel Stein represents the Los Angeles Times, and his work --as well as much of what the other Times op-ed journalists have put out-- have pushed the paper to the fringe of the fever swamp. Yet another reason why the Times' circulation continues to decrease, and new media continues to grow in influence and readership.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Good News For Bloggers

The FEC has decided it will not regulate politics on the internet, namely through blogs:
The Federal Election Commission decided Monday that the nation's new campaign finance law will not apply to most political activity on the Internet.

In a 6-0 vote, the commission decided to regulate only paid political ads placed on another person's Web site.

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.

"It's a win, win, win," Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, adding that the rule would satisfy concerns of campaigns, individuals and the Internet community about whether the campaign finance law applies to Internet political activity.

Moussaoui Knew About 9/11

In his sentencing trial today Moussaoui declared that he knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened, and that he was supposed to hijack a fifth plane then fly it into the White House.
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (CNN) — Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified at his sentencing trial Monday that he knew about the terrorist group’s plan to crash airplanes into the World Trade Center.

“I had knowledge that the two towers would be hit, but I did not have the details,” Moussaoui told jurors after taking the stand in his own defense. He said he was supposed to pilot a plane into the White House, with convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid as a member of his crew. Moussaoui said he did not know in advance the precise date of Twin Towers attack, which unfolded the morning of September 11, 2001.

The only person tried in the United States in connection with the 9/11 attacks, Moussaoui testified against the advice of his court-appointed lawyers.

I could be wrong, but I think that should pretty much make him a lock for the death penalty.

November Is Only Six Months Away

Painting The Map Red is the title of Hugh Hewitt's new book. The Power Line guys point us to the description on the inside flap:
Bestselling author, political strategist, and nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt shows you how conservatives can take down the Democrats, expose their liberal extremism, and reignite the Reagan Revolution.

Calling on his own extensive experience and on the savvy political minds of Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes, Michael Barone, and others in exclusive interviews [Ed.: That explains why I didn't know about the book. Hugh didn't interview me!], Hewitt reveals: € The Five Key Messages and Four Crucial Steps to a permanent Republican majority € How big is too big? Which senator deserves to get pushed out of the Republican big tent [Hint: It's the Missing Linc] € The next generation of liberal Democrats--if you thought Ted Kennedy was bad, wait till you see the party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Howard Dean € How extremist groups, especially on the Internet, are driving the Democrats' agenda € Why the Democrats' assault on religion is just ramping up € How Republicans can retake the courts and end Democrat obstruction € How the Democrats' alliance with liberal mainstream media can be turned against them both € Where we go from here: coming up with the right candidate after Bush

In politics, as in war, it pays to play offense, and Hugh Hewitt knows how the GOP can fight and win, coast to coast.

Be sure to pick up a copy in preparation for this election season.

Plagarism... By The MSM?

Over at the Huffington Post, I noticed a very intriguing story that may further erode any credibilty MSM still has. It opens:
There are many things that bother me about plagiarism, but nothing irks me more than when a mainstream reporter (or organization) with all of the resources of a small nation at their disposal lifts from the small press, freelance journalists, and bloggers.

As Glenn Reynolds notes, a "we don't credit blogs" policy doesn't seem to be a very good defense.

With the enormous increase in credibility and recognition in the blogs have experienced, and their ability for rapid response to breaking news, it is very plausible that MSM journalists often get beat to the punch on stories they would normaly cover. It is also equally plausible that while some journalists still cover thse stories in their own way, others might be tempted to cook up stories very similar to ones already posted on the internet by various blogs.

None of this may be true, but it is certainly a very possible scenario, and one that perhaps deserves more attention than it is currently receiving.