(Note: I originally posted this on my other blog (http://dashontheconstitution.blogspot.com), but as it doesn't get the traffic I get here I thought I would repost it...

War Powers defined


Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Seems fairly clear, doesn't it. The President shall be commander in chief...not the people directly, not the Congress, not the pollsters, not the protesters, not the Press.

The President.

Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...

Tsarina Pelosikyia's latest statements about military aircraft are: "its about distance, not size." This is BS! It is ALL about size as the unrefueled range of the C20 is up to 4,220 nm (7,815km) . Lets figure distance shall we? Distance between DC and San Francisco is: 2829.19 miles, or 4580Km as the crow flies. This is well within the unrefueled range of the C20, so the Speaker's complaint that it is about 'distance, not size' is demonstrable BS.

What the Tsarina does not like is that this is the same aircraft that the AF placed at the disposal of Speaker Hastert and being the First Female Speaker demands that she be accorded a larger aircraft. After all, she is the most powerful representative of the Cleanest Party ever elected, is she not?

She makes me sick, and the entire media's refusal to call her on the distance issue is no better.

God Save the Republic!

Boarder thoughts and posse comitatus.

The recent and continuing incarceration of two law enforcement agents for doing their jobs has brought this into greater focus for me. I’ll not devote any further verbiage to the disgraceful situation regarding Ramos/Campos save to say that the US Attorney should be dismissed and disbarred for malicious prosecution and the sitting trial judge should follow.

A few background facts are in order:

1: The current boarder with the Republic of Mexico was established by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848;

--The current amount of annual remittances by Mexican Nationals from the United States to Mexico far exceeds the $15 million specified within the Treaty as compensation between the United States and Mexico--;

2: Said boarder is recognized as valid under international law;

3: All sovereign nation-states have the inherent right of self-defense;

4: Boarder enforcement is traditional Army mission, to wit: to guarantee the territorial integrity of the United States of America;

5: Violation of recognized international boundaries (boarders) by armed members of another nation-state’s military is generally recognized as an act of war (invasion);

6: Posse Comitatus states that the US Army and Air Force may not be used for domestic enforcement of Federal Law, except as explicitly authorized by the Constitution or the Congress (Sec. 15)

7: Most States have provision for recall of elected officials, to include those elected to Federal Office for failing to discharge their Constitutional Duties or other reasons, in their State Constitutions

These are established, verifiable facts.

How does this relate to the situation now?

Publicly proclaim the following to the Government of the Republic of Mexico and the Nations of the World:

Whereas the current boarder between our two great nations is under daily assault by armed and unarmed persons originating within your established boarders has become an intolerable economic and social burden on the Citizens of the United States;

And whereas the Government of the Republic of Mexico has actively aided and abetted those individuals in violating the territorial integrity of the United States;

And whereas the Government of the Republic of Mexico has flatly refused to stem this flow;

And whereas the Government of the Republic of Mexico has provided legal assistance to known criminals in violation of our sovereign Law;

And whereas the Government of the Republic of Mexico has provided Armed escort by units of the Army of the Republic of Mexico to persons violating the territorial integrity of the United States of America;

And whereas the Government of the Republic of Mexico has ordered Armed units of the Army of the Republic of Mexico to deliberately and willfully violate the territorial integrity of the United States of America;

The Government of the United States makes the following Declaration:

That the Government of the Republic of Mexico shall within 72 hours of the publication of this notice take all necessary measures to secure the southern side of their common boarder with the united States;

That said units of the Army of the Republic of Mexico shall not under any circumstances approach to less than 3 statute miles of the southern boarder of the United States;

That the United States Army shall patrol the Northern side of the common boarder with the Republic of Mexico and have free right of passage to a distance of not more than 2 statue miles into the territory of the Republic of Mexico;

That further incursions by armed foreign nationals will no longer be permitted;

That any armed individual crossing the common, internationally recognized boarder between the Republic of Mexico and the United States of America will be considered to be an armed auxiliary of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Mexico and treated accordingly;

That unarmed individuals continuing to violate the territorial integrity of the United States for criminal or other purposes will be detained for a period of not less than 180 days for the express purpose of burying the dead and building encampments for holding detainees;

That said detained persons will be transported at the completion of their detainment period to the southernmost point of entry into the Republic of Mexico and there released;

That all costs and expenses incurred in stemming this illegal and unwarranted invasion by the Republic of Mexico upon these United States shall be borne in toto by the Republic of Mexico alone, said costs to be remitted to the Treasury of the United States in Gold Bullion or other valuable commodity (e.g. oil).

Now, is this over the top? Perhaps it is, but it illustrates the seriousness of the current situation. The Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive must take their duties as specifically defined under the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is among other things, to provide for the Common Defense…that is generally accepted and recognized to be to secure the d*&n boarders!

If you can not or will not do so, you will be voted out, recalled or impeached as necessary. If you are thinking that the constituents in your districts will not resort to such actions you are sadly mistaken as the results of the Nov 06 elections should point out to any former boarder district representative.

Here are the proposed Rules of Engagement for any Federalized National Guard units deployed to the boarder:

1: Your mission is to secure the southern boarder of the United States as established by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and recognized internationally since;

2: The use of deadly force upon armed foreign nationals is hereby authorized to be employed without warning – if you see a weapon, kill the individual carrying it.

Boarder Patrol agents may be used in the above scenario to guard the prisoners captured crossing the boarder, and backing up the grunts on the line. Federalized National Guard units can perform this mission without trouble (many are already doing so), with the rules of engagement as follows:

1: Your mission is to support the Army of the United States in securing the southern boarder of the United States as established by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and recognized internationally since

2: Deadly force is authorized to be used without warning upon all armed foreign nationals crossing the defined boarder – if you see a weapon, you kill the individual holding it

3: Unarmed individuals are to be detained until handed over to Boarder Patrol agents may arrive to establish their identity and purpose; they are to be isolated until the Boarder Patrol has established custody and begun questioning them. Under no circumstances are representatives of the Republic of Mexico to be permitted to speak with them until fingerprints, DNA/urine samples have been collected, and initial processing has begun;

4: Representatives/lawyers of the ACLU are prohibited from speaking with detainees under any and all circumstances;

5: With respect to ROE #3 above, no contact is permitted without a translator present; all conversations are to be videotaped for evidentiary purposes

6: Undocumented boarder crossers who are determined not to be of Hispanic origin will be detained without representation until country of origin can be determined.

Again, these ROE are somewhat over the top, but regrettably necessary. And all are legal under the Constitution. Illegal entrants are NOT United States Citizens and are therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights, Miranda does not apply to them.

 

Tsarina Pelosikya is at it again. This time she is blaming the DoD and Administration for leaks about her demand, yes it is a demand, that she be provided with USAF transport large enough to reach Her District from SF in one stop without refueling. Setting aside possible nepotism reasons (family and supporters to fly with her as well), the aircraft are not available. Of course, they could make a C130 or C17 available along with tanker support to get her there in one hop. DoD has also flatly denied her demand that her supporters or family fly free. Her family can fly if they pay the Government coach fare but her supporters may not fly with her at all. And her itinerary is fixed: Andrews AFB, MD to San Francisco and return. No other destinations permitted. The leaks by the way are from Congressional staffers not DoD or the Administration.

Speaker Hastert was provided access to a C20 (A Gulfstream Executive equivalent with 10-12 comfortable seats) for his hops to/from his Illinois district following 9/11. This, while expensive, is not nearly as costly as the larger transport the Tsarina wishes to use. Nor does it have the same communications suite installed as a standard package. Secure communications can be maintained, so that should be a non-starter for anyone.

No, this is just another ploy to exercise her power as Speaker and rub it into everyone that the Tsarina is special. There are daily non-stops from DC to San Francisco, therefore if it is that important that she take her entourage with her they can buy up the First/Business class cabin and fly commercial.

 

From NewsMax: Tsarina Peloskiya gets her way and gets a large aircraft, probably a VC135 though that is not specified. Nor is it indicated yet who will be allowed to travel with her. Any bets against her nespots? Or that the Supreme Anointed One will not get a bigger/better one – a reserve VC-25A for example?

Also on NewsMax: Dick Morris has a nice piece on the Giuliani candidacy…and the long knives are already out…

From CNS: While being headlined on CNS and in the Left-media as a block, or stoppage of debate, the Senate vote Monday night against cloture ensures the debate over the non-binding ‘retreat now!’ resolution will continue…

Two recent opinion pieces by Wm Arkin clearly display the disdain most Lefties feel and display toward the American Serviceman. It is their business to bash heads and break things when told and to shut up when the American People (e.g. the Left) criticizes their mission.

To the Left: Shut UP or put up!

You CAN NOT support the troops without supporting their mission! There is an inherent contradiction in that position that is blindingly obvious to all with a functioning brain. The time for debate on the worthiness of the overall mission is long past: we have Americans being shot at daily in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether we should have gone in is a nice historical question, but we are there NOW! Support for the troops in harms way means providing them with the funding they need to carry out the missions assigned, and keeping debate (if any) both civil and within the boarders. In the age of instant worldwide communications, those who would tell you that they are keeping a united front to the world are full of it. Funnily enough, these are the same people who would tell you that we support our troops but we can’t in good conscience continue to fund their mission. I have a challenge for you Lefties out there: Identify many of your core contradictions if you can.

The men and women serving on the front lines are some of the brightest and most intelligent people you will ever meet. A dirty little secret of the ASVAB test is that it is also an IQ test. And despite school grades, only the most intelligent and able of the potential recruits are accepted. It doesn’t matter what their origins are, the military is a true meritocracy – any recruit can become a flag officer with hard work, discipline and desire. ANY! It does not matter the color of their skin, it does not matter their faith, it does not matter their initial educational level, nor does it matter their gender. What matters is their ability.

There are far too many on the Left think of soldiers as barbarians and intellectual idiots who join the military because they like to fight, or are unable to support themselves in the ‘real world’ (apparently of activism, academia, politics, entertainment, and journalism). A couple of hundred years ago that may have been sufficient; for cannon fodder. That is not what today’s soldier is. He is a highly trained and educated generalist who must know how to publicly speak, operate a computer efficiently, think on his feet, analyze and correctly respond to any situation, not to mention operate highly complex weapons and communications systems. All of which requires innate intelligence and ability.

The men and women of today’s military are NOT under any sense of the term ‘mercenaries’. They are patriots who chose to ‘place their own bodies between their beloved home and war’s desolation.’ ALL of them hate the desolation as they are the ones who bear its burden directly. It is not easy, comfortable, or safe. Those serving in desert camps and fire-bases in Afghanistan and Iraq are subject to daily rocket and mortar attacks that can come at any time. There are many stories of soldiers, who are woken in the middle of the night by an explosion outside their billet, and there are one or two stories of soldiers who have been awakened by a mortar shell crashing through the walls or ceiling of their hut. The shell failed to explode, and these soldiers are incredibly lucky, but that does nothing to ease the terror they feel.

Specifics:

In his first article, Mr. Arkin demands (yes DEMANDS!) that the soldiers shut up and soldier. It is not his place or position to demand the respect of our service members.

One of the most obscene comments is the following:

” …we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?...”

He further displays his awesome ignorance of those in uniform with the following:

“But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. …”

Mr. Arkin, a word from one who has been there: Shut up, you do not know whereof you speak. Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to sound like a blithering idiot; it also protects those in uniform who know what they are talking about. As a ‘professional journalist’ you have the responsibility to get your facts straight before committing words to paper.

Your entire premise is summarized in the opening of your concluding paragraph and your implication that America doesn’t owe our soldiers on the front lines anything sickens me no end. I’ll conceded that your opinion that Iraq is not necessary dirty work is honestly held, and I will further conceded your right to express it; I will not concede that you are correct – because you are not.

Your statement that they are ‘young and naïve’ is patronizing in the extreme; many are on their second or third deployments to Iraq and do indeed believe in the mission. Particularly, the overall mission that they are fighting the terrorists where they are and not here at home. It is further patronizing in that you seem to be making the assertion that they are naïve in thinking that they don’t have a choice in the matter or that they are not making a difference in people’s lives.

Your ‘mercenary…oops ‘volunteer’…force’ comment tells me that you do indeed believe our citizen soldiers to be mercenaries and a draft is advocated (despite comments to the contrary later). Tell me: Did your family own slaves as well? For that is exactly what you’re advocating with a return to the draft!

Are our troops cut off from society? Yes and no. They are apart from society in that they have voluntarily placed themselves in harms way, protecting us from the wolves outside the gate. They are fully integrated into our society in all other respects with access to broadcast news feeds and entertainment in their off time – access which they must pay for out of their own pockets for the most part.

What they want and deserve is our respect for themselves, their families, and their mission. They deserve a united country at their back and a warm welcome home when they return. They do not deserve a bitterly divided Congress and an entertainment industry who degrades them at every public opportunity.

Your follow up posting is even worse and still more hypocritical. You wrote:

” I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today….’

Then proceed in the immediately following paragraph with the following screed of idiocy:

“These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.”

These people are NOT hiding behind the Constitution and the Flag and then ‘spewing anti-Democrat, anti-liberal message that reflects a certain contempt for the American People!’ Their contempt is for those on either side like you who display contempt toward them. Despite what you may think, you are not representative of the American People, nor was the election in November a repudiation of the war in Iraq. The Left does not have a mandate to de-fund or withdraw. While there is discontent toward the direction we have followed, it is the discontentment of a sophisticated populace and electorate who are frustrated with the political atmosphere and restraints placed upon our warriors. The ‘American Public’ wants the US fighting forces to WIN! Utter defeat of the enemy is what is desired by both the populace and the soldiers. They do not want to have to do this again and again and again; and they most certainly do not want US combat forces fighting in the streets of New York, DC, Peoria.

This paragraph further illustrates your contempt for those in uniform and your utter inability to get it right:

“I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"

Their attitude is NOT that we should ‘give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?” because they are NOT above it. They are protecting your right to be an a$$ and deserve your respect. What they are saying is that those who would criticize should know at least a little of what they are talking about before they open their mouths to put their feet in it. The US military has already fought one war in which the idiots at home stabbed them in the back and they have no desire to fight another.

Here’s some more of his brilliance:

“Again, I understand the frustration of those in uniform and the supporters of the war. But these are not the only people who have a valid opinion, and there is great danger for the nation - as Bush-Cheney and company have already demonstrated - when people arrogate to themselves the sole determinant to make a judgment about national security”

The absolute ignorance of the Constitution and his arrogance that his party would do any better astounds me. The Constitution clearly states that the President is the Commander in Chief. It is ultimately his decision to commit our forces to war, not the Congress’, not the pollsters, and most certainly not the media. Congress has the Constitutional authority to issue ‘Declarations of War’ and to ‘raise and support armies’; it does not have the authority to dictate when/where our forces are engaged. A Declaration of War is a legal statement and legislative responsibility. Funding is a Constitutional requirement. Determining strategy and tactical placement is most specifically NOT the responsibility of a committee. It is the responsibility of one man, and that man is the President. It is his job to determine judgments about national security. Congress may have input as to overall policy and force levels; they do not make the decision to send our forces into combat.

The articles in question are listed below for your own reference.

The Troops Also Need to Support the American People

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html

The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/02/the_arrogant_and_intolerant_sp.html#more

 

National TV news organizations in 1987: 4 ½ (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS)

National Radio news organizations in 1987: 4.5 (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR/PBS)

The internet was not available to the general public – in fact it was not generally known to exist and was still operating under its original name (ARPANET) - therefore there was NO direct competition to print media

Conservatives were on local/regional AM radio but there was no national reach.

Most AM radio stations were oldies, faith-oriented, local news only – talk shows were relegated to the after midnight time period when no paying advertisers were available anyway.

And you wonder why the Communist/Socialist/Leftist censorship mongers want to restore the ‘fairness doctrine’?

‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’(am 2) Except by the Congress in the District of Columbia. Either by omission or commission, Congress is violating this Constitutional provision within the Federal Seat.

‘To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States’ (Art 1, sec 8) – I don’t recall any amendments ceding local authority of the District to a mayor or council…

’ To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy; (Art 1, sec 8) – I don’t see in the Constitution where Congress is granted the authority of the Commander in Chief…

To those who advocate a resolution of disagreement with the CinC regarding the surge: you are sending a message to our troops as well as our enemies. ‘We view you as pawns to be tossed aside when you’re no longer politically expedient.’ To the enemy: ‘Keep it up, we’re gonna cave any day now.’

If you vote to de-fund the war, as is your Constitutional prerogative, you are telling the troops in harms way: F&^k you. And I dare you to try.

To those with rational, thoughtful, disagreement: Great and good and I’m willing to listen; freedom of speech is a wonderful thing that allows one to voice disagreement with each other and the Government. Unfortunately, many disagreements are simple knee-jerk reactions to GWB with no thought behind them at all.

I have great reservations about the wisdom of having gone into Iraq in the first place; however we are there now and must succeed in the mission we have been set. Full-on Jeffersonian Democracy is a pipe-dream; a stable Iraqi government, with relatively accountable politicians and an accountable army that can defend itself is probably the best we can do.

about Republican abuses of power and perqs!

Her Highness Tsarina Nancy Peloskiya is at it again, this time involving the US Air Force. Seems she’s trying to get clearance to shuttle back and forth to San Fran on AF transport. That much is OK, since post 9/11 DOD directives give her that perq as Speaker. Unfortunately she’s trying to get her kin and other nespots the same treatment. Seems I recall a Chief of Staff who got into hot water for using AF transport to fly back and forth to NH…Oh that’s right, he was working for a Republican…

See today’s Washington Times for more. (Free subscription required)

Curiously, the headlines of MSNBC/CNN are silent on the issue...

What does the War on Terror mean to the Left?

This is quite a question that I would love to see the Democrat candidates actually answer. No evasions, no speeches, just a straight answer.

Given their actions over the last 5 years and their history of ‘Wars on whatever’, my thoughts are as follows:

1. It is a symbolic war;
2. It is primarily a talking point war;
3. It is a Federal program at which to throw buckets of tax dollars into their own special pet projects;
4. It is only against Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden;
5. It was never intended to be a ‘real’ war with real US soldiers taking real casualties;
6. It is ‘war’ that only they can ‘win’ through symbolic trials (show trials) and diplomacy

What does all of this really mean? Either that the Left leadership doesn’t understand English (which they don’t, particularly the straight, normal kind) or that they only thought Bush was engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric when he stated in September 2001 that:

“…Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated…. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime….”

Emphasis mine and it seems quite clear to me.

This war is not just against al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden, but against all who would harbor and support them. For those who don’t understand this last bit: If you provide them safe living and training conditions/land, or provide them weapons, intelligence, or money you are a legitimate target. So yes, that means Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Authority are legitimate targets. As to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the rest of the Gulf States; their Governments at least seem to realize that direct support is going to be dangerous; their citizens may provide support, but the Governments do not.

There is no denying that Iraq is a mess; yet there have been many successes there as well. We can all remember the purple fingers of normal Iraqi citizens who freely voted their consciences three times within the last 2 years. Many were women! Schools are open outside of Baghdad, power is there, and clean water is flowing. Outside of the Sunni Triangle of Death, Iraq is rebuilding with our help. The same activities are occurring in Afghanistan, another place impossible to win if I recall correctly.

Do I have doubts about the wisdom of going into Iraq with the force-mix we had? Of course. Do I doubt we did the right thing in removing Saddam? No, I do not; although the follow on government is still an open question.

What is the long-term solution?

I don’t know that there really is one; however partition seems likely the only way to stabilize the region. That is unfortunately unlikely given that the Turks and the Saudis will not tolerate it. The Turks due to their animosity and internal issues with their own Kurdish population and the Saudis don’t want a Shi’a region on their Northern Border – particularly one with strong ties to Iran. Come to think of it, none of the Gulf States is particularly enamored of the Persians across the water, whatever their philosophical bent.

Containment, remember that? is again raising its head. This time the target of that containment seems to be Iran. North Korea is fairly well contained at the moment, though I make no predictions for the future. I mean, look at the map. Afghanistan and Iraq both surround Iran on the landward sides, making for possible invasion routes. The Gulf is not at risk as it’s essentially a lake controlled by the US Navy. Granted, the Iranians have diesel-electric submarines (old Soviet Kilos, IIRC) and that is a concern. However, US ASW is the best in the world and I have no doubt that any Iranian boat that even looks like trying anything is gonna get real dead real fast. We also own the air over the region, so that flank is also fairly secure. Are we going to invade Iran? Doubtful, the terrain is much like that of Afghanistan or Korea (mountainous) and not easily crossed; besides there really is no need. They continue to feed idiots into the meat grinder of Bagdad and we continue to kill them.

Some 9/11 questions:

Hannity aired the 'unedited' bits from the path to 9/11 last night and while it may not be accurate; it feels accurate; it has the ring of truth about it. In addition, the screenwriter/producer backed up this scene (wherein Berger hung up on the field team), by stating he had spoken to agents in the field who experienced similar things over the years leading to it and that this individual had been on 12 teams – admittedly this is hearsay evidence. Was it contrived? Perhaps, but why then would Berger and the Clintons have demanded, yes demanded, that ABC excise parts of this scene? Could it be it hit far too closely to the truth? Unfortunately we may never know as Mr. Burglar destroyed documents that the 9/11 Commission needed - and many of the commissioners were well aware of the destruction. What did these documents show? Were they phone logs? Drafts of internal memoranda with President Clinton’s notes? Drafts with Her Supreme Anointed Ones’ notes???? We will likely never really know as Burglar has not been polygraphed on this, despite that being a condition of his plea. The originals are gone and there is little doubt that the relevant papers in the Clinton library say what the Clintons say that they say – and they may even have a passing resemblance to copies in the Archives. They will have little to no relation to the truth, not to mention reality.

Now, could we have killed Osama before 9/11, certainly, perhaps even deniably. Would it have been an illegal assassination: Nope – or at least I don’t think so. Straight assassination may even have been legal, a paramilitary covert operation would also have covered it. Yet there are times when deniability can be a handicap. If one is too worried that things will get out, then nothing will ever get done – particularly things that need to be done in the shadows. Yet there are actions that Nation-States take in the shadows that other Nation-States respect, even if they are not particularly legal.

Let’s take another look at a couple of Lefty fantasies:

A) Bush stole the 2000 election thereby taking the post-9/11 world away from ALGORE. Stipulating that 9/11 would still have occurred, what makes them think that ALGORE would actually have done anything at all? This deserves some examination based only on what his mentor actually did.

a. In 1993, Mr. Bill did not visit the WTC site following the bombing. Once it was determined that Muslim extremists had carried out the attack, he did nothing;

b. 1993: Blackhawk Down in Somalia: Clinton withdraws a couple of months after US casualties are dragged through the streets;

c. 1995: Janet Reno unleashes Federal Agents on the compound in Waco, setting large fires and killing American children;

d. 1996: Oklahoma City: Agents do not spend enough time looking at other links to Timothy McVeigh – there are allegations that he had support from external agencies;

e. 1996: Khobar Towers was bombed by Muslim extremists – Clinton’s reaction was to move all troops then stationed in Saudi out to Prince Sultan Air Base deep in the desert and to fire the wing commander;

f. 1998: US Embassies were bombed by Al Qaeda Clinton retaliated by tossing a few Tomahawks at the problem. Hitting a milk factory in Sudan and a few empty camps in Afghanistan;

g. 2000: FBI agents raid a house in Miami and seize arch Cuban terrorist Elian Gonzales;

h. 2000: USS Cole bombed in Yemen harbor. Clinton left it for Bush to deal with.

B) Kerry lost the election in 2004.

a. What makes the Left think he would have done anything different in Iraq??? This is a ‘man’ who was ‘wounded’ 3 times in 4 months (requiring band-aids) and departed Vietnam to testify a couple of years later about ‘war crimes’ we were committing. As an active Reservist at the time his testimony was arguably legal; but as it was fraudulent it was actionable by the Navy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

Something to Consider:

The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the law and traditionally may use regulations as the means. Let us consider what this could mean to the citizens of this Great Experiment in Republican Democracy come 2009.

1) All parents are hereby relieved of their responsibility for raising children, it takes a village to raise them properly, therefore all children will be delivered to Party approved care centers immediately;

2) All private health insurance plans are now null and void, the Party will provide care from birth to age 60. Doctors who chose to care for patients beyond this cutoff age will be re-educated;

3) Immigration reform will not happen, the open boarder types will get what they want, and all people (citizens or not) will by Executive decree be permitted to vote

4) Secret balloting will go the way of the Dodo as electronic voting is mandated in all States and territories; a fingerprint scan will be required for votes and all reactionaries (e.g. non-Party members) will be ignored. Absentee votes by service personnel overseas will be disregarded

5) Tax returns will be analyzed with a fine tooth comb; any that show an excess of income will be taxed at a level to ensure that anyone earning more than minimum wage is penalized (the exceptions being tenured professors, Congress-critters of proper Party affiliation and their children)

6) No one will be permitted a personal vehicle; airfare will be not less than $100 per air mile flown, thereby making air travel unaffordable for all except Party members and their ilk.

7) All privately owned guns (working or not) will be confiscated as the Constitution was never intended to permit armed citizenry (Party members excepted, of course);

8) There will be but one recognized Party;

9) All internet connections will run through Party approved servers;

10) All news and broadcast media must be professionally certified by the Party;

11) The 22^nd Amendment is hereby repealed by Executive Order; to Justices of the Supreme Court who disagree with this Order your resignations are accepted immediately;

12) The new Rules of Engagement are as follows:

a. There must be no doubt as to the actions of the enemy;

b. You may return fire directed at you with non-lethal methods only;

c. Any combatants captured are automatically granted US citizenship and must be represented by a Party attorney within 2 hours;

Granted, many of these are somewhat over the top, but how far?

 

Vietnam/Nixon

And Bush/Iraq. What do all of these have in common? The Left's prism of them. Vietnam=all future US wars not fought by them Nixon=All Republican Presidents since. The press got a taste of political power when they exposed the problems of the Nixon presidency in Watergate and they've never found a reason to let go. With the notable exception of their Sainted Bill that is...Ms. Coulter in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"  pointed out that Nixon was impeached for (among other unsavory things) merely mentioning the possibility of having the IRS look into someone's tax situation. Clinton actually had it done and fired his initial IRS commissioner for refusal to do so during the Travel-gate scandal. Also Paula Jones, etc were victims of targeted IRS audits. That is an egregious abuse of power, if true, and deserved impeachment. Of course, they only impeached him for lying under oath in a civil matter - not for lying about WMD or unleashing the IRS on his political foes, or taking campaign money from a foreign country, or... This from the 'most ethical administration in modern history'... They make me sick. And the moonbats out there care nothing for verifiable fact; just the point that their guy wasn't able to engineer victories in 2000/2004 and so therefore can't spend trillions of our dollars in a rat-hole pseudo war on terror... Or perhaps they are convinced that 9/11 would have been avoided with ALGORE in office? Please... Link to Ann's Book: http://www.amazon.com/High-Crimes-Misdemeanors-Against-Clinton/dp/0895261138/sr=1-6/qid=1169742856/ref=sr_1_6/002-7855750-7459250?ie=UTF8&s=books

Ben Shapiro has an interesting analysis of the Dem response to the SOTU today...

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2007/01/25/webb_of_venom?page=full&comments=true

Ann Coulter is her usual satirical self and the moonbats are out in force in response...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/01/24/i_am_woman,_hear_me_bore

Jeff Jacoby asks why the Dems are silent on the overall threat...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=democrats_silence_on_the_global_jihad&ns=JeffJacoby&dt=01/25/2007&page=full&comments=true#d5a29d24-85f4-4d9e-81e1-71af50b52679

my Constitutional analysis blog. It's at http://dashontheconstitution.blogspot.com and concerns the enumerated war powers of the Congress and the President... 

Looks like Her Highness, Princess Nancy is pulling a hillary and trying to establish another 'select' committee. This one focusing on 'Climate Change and its Solutions'. Two things: A) Climate change, if even occurring is far more likely to be caused by natural phenomena than by human (read American) activity; B) Did she learn nothing when The Supreme Anointed One tried the same kind of thing???? 

In other insane news: The Weather Channel has declared that the AMS must pull recognition from broadcast meterologists, and other members, who do not agree with the 'fact' that global warming is exclusively caused by American Capitalism. Well, ok, just one of their hosts...see this for her own words...

Two things on this last paragraph: 

Climate change may be ocurring: we do not have enough observational data to say. Those who would refer to models I remind of the ancient and honorable GIGO law - Garbage IN, Garbage OUT. Computer models will state what their authors want them to state and nothing else. They can be useful guides but are no substitute to real observational data. And when dealing with something as complex and large as Earth's climate, ALL factors MUST be considered.

Even stipulating that climate chage is ocurring; it is neither the first nor last time it has happened. And America is NOT at fault. If you think that an oversimplification of the human-centric warming argument; i invite you to look at who would actually be paying for all of the Kyoto mandated changes (which don't work anyway - as the Europeans are discovering). Hint: It ain't the Chinese consumer...