CUTTING OFF THEIR DIGITS

A quick mention this morning goes to the mayor of Las Vegas. We've all seen graffiti in the cities, . . . overpasses and bridges built with taxpayer dollars, only to be defaced by some teenage waste of oxygen with a spray can.

The city tries to remove it, paint over it, whatever, . . . but it never looks the same.

Enter Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman. He's getting tired of the graffiti in his town. Speaking into a TV camera, he said "In the old days in France, they had beheading of people who commit heinous crimes. You know, we have a beautiful highway landscaping redevelopment in our downtown. We have desert tortoises and beautiful paintings of flora and fauna. These punks come along and deface it. I'm saying maybe you put them on TV and cut off a thumb. That may be the right thing to do."

Amen!!

Then, he also went a bit further, . . . saying whippings or canings should be brought back for kids who get into trouble, . . . to set an example. Not a bad idea, . . . perhaps it would knock some sense into them.

Of course, all of this will never happen, . . . It's just a figment of my wild imagination, . . . with parents who believe their babies can do no wrong and the ACLU and race pimps and such out there, playing to the mainstream media crowd, so that their loyal followers can get a warm-fuzzie, from time to time. But it's a really good idea, if I DO say so myself!!

Oh, and Goodman is a Democrat. Makes me think there may be hope for that party yet.

God Bless,
Dan'L

SCOOTER LIBBY GOES TO COURT

Former Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was arraigned in court yesterday, . . . and with that, the issue of his indictment became a dead one for Democrats.

Libby waived his right to a speedy trial and his next court date is in February. That's months away, . . . so much for the left turning this into the next Watergate.

Libby also hired some big guns, . . . including the lawyer that got Mike Espy off in the 90's when he was indicted. They're going to demand to see reporter's notes and all of the evidence against Libby just as soon as they get security clearances. This should be fun.

Naturally, he pleaded not guilty.

The defense will be that Libby simply recalled events differently than did the reporters being used against him. He stands a good chance of walking.

Once that jury is seated, they're going to realize that they don't remember everybody they talked to and what was said two years ago. How can they send Libby off to prison for the same thing?? The last time I checked, having a faulty memory was not a crime.

If Libby is acquitted next year, Cheney should rehire him. The growing list of extremists on the left would go nuts!!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Remaking The Image of Saddam Hussein

Now we hear Saddam Hussein really meant to leave Iraq before the war started. As predicted, now that his trial has started, the push is on to rewrite history and portray the Butcher of Baghdad as a victim. After all, to show Saddam on trial is to showcase a George Bush success.

The overthrow and capture of Saddam gives the war a purpose, . . . and allows people to see him be punished.So now we're seeing Saddam cast in a positive light. And one of the ways in which this extreme makeover is being conducted is the news making the rounds yesterday and today. It would seem Saddam Hussein accepted an offer for exile in the United Arab Emirates days before the invasion, but the deal fell through because Saddam wanted some conditions. Bad move.

At any rate, expect the left to seize upon this as yet another reason the war in Iraq didn't need to take place. Saddam was going to leave! George Bush wanted war anyway! You can almost hear Cindy Sheehan gearing up right now. But there are a few problems with this. For one, George Bush told Saddam Hussein and his sons that they had 48 hours to leave Iraq. They could have left. They could have surrendered. They chose not to. Yet another example of the power of bad decision making. That turned out to be a very bad move by Uday and Qusay, . . . they're currently enjoying the proverbial eternal celestial desert sand nap, courtesy of the 101st Airborne.

This is going to become the new rallying cry for the moonbats (love that word). Saddam was going to leave, but George Bush went ahead with the war anyway. Revising history to fit your political ideology is so easy, isn't it?

God Bless,
Dan'L

Good News From Iraq?????

Did you know that 53 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that the most powerful political force in Iraq is now the women's vote? Are you aware that before the U.S. invasion and ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime, women were less than slaves, had zero political voice and now, suddenly, the entire female population understands what pure personal freedom can be?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 22 Universities, 47 Institutes or colleges and 6 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the reestablished Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5-100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, have now added 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers, and are expecting to add even more?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion? Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 7 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3600 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004, and has flourished, ever since?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA SOURCES WOULDN'T TELL US! Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib, people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades, Cindy Sheehan threatening to tie herself to the White House fence, and Howard Dean telling us that America is a racist nation with the ruling party of white Christians ruining our precious world-wide reputation.

The lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes. It is intended to help undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens. All this in the quest to restore liberal political power to the minority party.

---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site. http://www.defendamerica.mil/ Please visit that site, and learn even more about the successes in Iraq. It's your patriotic duty, as and American Citizen to seek out the truth about your own country, and not listen to the politically charged "news" of the day, from sources you cannot trust. Just think "Dan Rather" each time you begin to believe what that television/radio device is reporting as "news."

God Bless,
Dan'L

When it all boils down, . . . Here's what's left, . . .


Let me start with, . . . Well, let's pause just a second, to remember what Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, was supposed to investigate.

His job was to find out whether or not the identification of Valerie Plame was a violation of federal law. The answer to that question is apparently a firm, “No!”

Sure, Fitzgerald is keeping the investigation open for a time, but it's a save bet to assume that the identification of Plame was not a crime, either because she was not a covert CIA agent at the time the identification was made, or because the person making the identification was not aware of her status. The evidence seems to be that she was not covert at the time she was identified. No crime.

What crime has been charged?? Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, has been charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. [read the indictment press release pdf]

What did he do?? Well, as best as I can figure it out it happened this way: New York Times reporter Matthew Cooper asked Libby what he had heard about the status of Valerie Plame. Libby answered that he had heard other reporters saying that Plame worked for the CIA. The investigation apparently showed that Libby told Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA without the qualification that he had heard that from other reporters. There's two of your crimes, the two counts of perjury. Libby also said that he had talked to NBC's Tim Russert about the affair, when he had not.

What wasn't Libby charged with?? Disclosing the name of a CIA covert agent, or conspiring to do so. I don't know who first coined this phrase, but essentially Libby was charged with lying about a crime that was not committed.

Now, . . . let's talk about the lying thing. Our entire system of justice relies of our ability to compel people to tell the truth and to punish them if they should fail to do so. Lying under oath is a serious matter, whether you're lying to deny a young woman you've sexually harassed her day in court, or lying to protect your political position or the position of your boss. These lies must be punished, not necessarily because of the severity of the crime involved, but because of the fact that someone swore to tell the truth, and then did not. The severity of the crime being investigated is not the issue, the fact that a lie was told is. Our system of civil and criminal justice would fall into ruin if we were to adopt some standard that outright perjury or lying to investigators can be tolerated if the crime being investigated isn't all that serious. We would then have to create some system under which we would grade civil and criminal complaints as to their degrees of seriousness so as to determine whether the people involved would have to tell the truth or not.

In the case of Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame it seems clear that no crime was committed, yet lies may have been told during the investigative process that made that determination. If so, then indictments are proper, and punishment is warranted. Remember, though, that it is not enough for a statement to be untrue for it to be categorized as a lie. The person uttering that statement has to know that the statement was not true at the time the statement was made.

Therefore, George Bush's assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was not a lie, unless it can be proven that Bush knew at the time he made the statement that it was not true. (Since such weapons have, in fact, been found ... the question of whether or not Bush lied has been put to rest.)

Now that the media circus is close to being played out, let's review:

1.) The left and the media are trying to portray this as some sort of confirmation that 'Bush lied' about weapons of mass destruction. Libby's indictment is nothing of the sort. In fact, Libby was indicted for the cover-up of a non-crime. Fitzgerald went out of his way, during the Press Conference he held on Friday, to say Libby wasn't being charged for outing Valerie Plame. Thus, the entire reason for the initial probe has been dropped.

2.) Liberals are acting like Scooter Libby is the most powerful government official to have ever lived. The fact of the matter is that most people have no idea who Scooter Libby is. For all they know, it's Phil Rizzuto's love child from his playing days and not the vice-president's chief of staff. The story will be off the radar screen by this afternoon, once Bush nominates his new Supreme Court replacement, and the media circus on that topic begins.

3.) This is not the start of some huge scandal. Fitzgerald had 2 years and millions of dollars to investigate this non-crime, and we have one person being charged. Case closed. If it was going to go any higher, it would have already.

Democrats are naturally disappointed, but that won’t keep them from kicking and screaming, . . . that’s just their nature, . . . to bleed all they can bleed, for the cameras and blog commentary postings. Poor, poor, li’l ol’ me – I’ve been wronged by the terrible, corrupt Bush administration. Flinging it against the wall, just to see if it sticks. Sorry Bob!! Sorry Tim!! Sorry Cindy!! It won’t stick.

Oh, . . . and to further enrage your liberal friends, . . . tell them that Libby's lying to the grand jury is absolutely no different than Bill Clinton's. The only valid comparison is the fact that Bill Clinton didn't serve a day in jail, and Scooter Libby almost certainly will, . . . Then say, in a whisper, . . "(Unless he’s pardoned upon arrival)"

God Bless,
Dan'L

Conservative Base Should Rally Around Alito

Nicknamed "Scalito" for views resembling those of conservative Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito Jr. is a favorite son of the political
right.

Appointed in 1990 by George H.W. Bush to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, Alito has earned a reputation for intellectual rigor and polite but
frequent dissent in a court that has been historically liberal.

His
mettle, as well as a personable demeanor and ties to former Republican
administrations, has long had observers buzzing about his potential rise to the
high court.

"Sam Alito is in my mind the strongest candidate on the
list," says Pepperdine law Prof. Douglas Kmiec. "I know them all . . . but I
think Sam is a standout because he's a judge's judge. He approaches cases with
impartiality and open-mindedness."

A New Jersey native, the 55-year-old
Alito received a bachelor's degree from Princeton and graduated from Yale Law
School.

He worked in the solicitor general's office during the Reagan
administration and was a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey when
George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Third Circuit. His 15 years on the bench
have been marked by strong conservatism on a case-by-case basis that avoids
sweeping opinions on constitutionality.

In 1997, Alito authored the
majority opinion upholding a city's right to stage a holiday display that
included a Nativity scene and a menorah because the city also included secular
symbols and a banner emphasizing the importance of diversity. In Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which
struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their
husbands.

He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion,
such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously
expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to
abortion.

" The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower
court's decision 6 to 3.

Reaction is already coming out on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Although President George W. Bush’s comments of a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas were not stated as emphatically as a “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge, conservatives took it as such and thus were justifiably dismayed at the president’s first pick to replace O’Connor. Now, the president has given America a nominee with a proven judicial record – one that steers clear of judicial activism.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has called Alito a “man of outstanding character, who is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement and leadership.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that an Alito nomination would create problems for the Democrats and noted on CNN’s Late Edition that Alito was “not one of the names that I’ve suggested to the president.”

It appears that the battle lines are being drawn, and it’s now time for the entire Republican Party to come together around a solid nominee of stellar credentials and a proven judicial track record.

In remarks on Monday morning, President Bush said that Judge Alito “is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America, and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of experience.”

As a Justice Department official, federal prosecutor and judge on the United States Court of Appeals, Sam Alito has shown a mastery of the law, a deep commitment of justice, … and he is a man of enormous character. He’s scholarly, fair-minded and principled, and these qualities will serve our nation well on the highest court of the land.

In accepting the nomination, Judge Alito thanked President Bush and said that the U.S. Supreme Court is an institution “that I have long held in reverence.”

During my 29 years as a public servant, I’ve had the opportunity to view the Supreme Court from a variety of perspectives — as an attorney in the Solicitor General’s Office, arguing and briefing cases before the Supreme Court, as a federal prosecutor, and most recently for the last 15 years as a judge of the Court of Appeals. During all of that time, my appreciation of the vital role that the Supreme Court plays in our constitutional system has greatly deepened.

Judge Samuel A. Alito was born in 1950 in Trenton, NJ. He was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by President George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990 and was confirmed by the Senate on April 27 of that year. Alito received his B.A. from Princeton in 1972 and his law degree from Yale in 1975.

Judge Alito was a law clerk for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit from 1976-1977. Judge Alito then served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1977-1981. He then served as assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC from 1981-1985. Alito was also deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, from 1985-1987 and then the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987-1990.
*****************************************************************
Get ready fellow conservatives. It's gonna be a lot of fun, watching the self-destructive democrats, as they attempt to keep Alito off the SCOTUS. I predict a minimum of a temper tantrum, kicking, screaming, semi-meltdown from the likes of Harry Reid, and Dianne Feinstein, speaking nothing of Edward Kennedy, and Chuckie Schumer.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Unnamed "Privacy Groups" Challenge FCC Wiretapping Rules

The new FCC rules are being attacked on several fronts. Dispite the fact that the country's very best civil rights attorneys have been working on them for years, several "privacy and civil liberties groups" are challenging the rules on the grounds that they have the potential to be "Big Brother" type wiretaps, in which law-enforcement officials could do any type of surveillance they wanted.

New Federal Communications Commission rules that expand the wiretapping capability of law enforcement are under fire by privacy , high-tech, and telecommunications groups.

In an effort to make it easier for law enforcement to monitor e-mails and VoIP calls, the FCC is attempting to extend the reach of a 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

Originally passed to simplify investigations that involved telecom companies and alleged Internet criminals, the FCC now wants to require Internet providers and VoIP companies to fall under the law's directives. The new rules are scheduled to be put in place in May 2007.

Hue and Cry
The new FCC rules are being attacked on several fronts. Privacy and civil liberties groups are challenging the rules on the grounds that they have the potential to be "Big Brother" type wiretaps, in which law-enforcement officials could do any type of surveillance they wanted.

Some are challenging the FCC on economic grounds, saying that the rules would force universities and libraries, as well as smaller ISPs, to pay dearly for network redesigns to make them accessible to law enforcement.

Also mentioned in the challenges is the belief that Internet innovation could be stifled because the technological demands of developers would hinder their works in progress.

Balance Beam
As electronic communication becomes more prevalent on a global scale, governments are seeking ways to use the technology to catch Internet criminals and terrorists. But such actions are forcing privacy watchdogs to be even more vigilant, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"We understand that governments need to prosecute cybercrime and to track terrorists," he said. "But there has to be a balance with protection of privacy and civil liberties."

In many items of proposed legislation, Rotenberg has seen only a nod toward privacy protection and a strong emphasis on giving law enforcement agencies more power.

"The big concern is how much authority we're giving to this small group of people," said Rotenberg. "We need to catch terrorists and cybercriminals, but there's a way to do that without stripping away individual protections."

Observations
It's the experience of this author that these "privacy groups" are well-funded, extreme leftist organizations, who have become very well organized toward depriving America of many freedoms, while using "Freedom" as a catalyst for their crusades. The best example is the most recent introduction of a bill before Congress that makes the sale of a social security number a crime.

Under the guise of "protection against the epidemic of identity theft," these groups seek to eliminate the credit bureaus and data compilation companies from selling peoples' social security numbers, which are generally used to determine identity between one "John Doe" and another.

For example, if you had an auto accident, while on vacation in another state, and wanted to sue the driver, a Mrs. Tom Schmidt, who once lived at 8888 Eightball Avenue, in Los Angeles, California, but you had no zip code, (usually because either the cop didn't record it, or his form didn't require it), and your attorney just spent a few of your dollars, learning that Eightball Avenue just became the cross-town Expressway, . . . you may have an issue finding the right person to have served with the legal papers to get the right Mrs. Tom Schmidt into the courtroom to answer the lawsuit.

Another example would be the case where you learn that you were adopted, and the hospital committed numerous egregious acts to cover your mother's illigitimate birth, back in the days when the FCC handled ONLY radio and television issues. Let's say, for example that you're a female, and you have a serious issue with your hormones creating a chemical imballance in your blood, and you need a family medical history, in order for your doctor to properly diagnose and treat the condition. Not possible according to these "privacy groups." You just have to fall through the cracks -- you're on your own! Leaving no possible way to force the courts to require the current authorities to allow the searches necessary to learn the truth to get the treatment for your continued survival. You are, as they say, "S.O.L." Nice approach, . . . until YOU become the victim who needs to identify someone, in order to learn the truth, or to obtain justice.

The proposals above, with the quotes from the folks in the "privacy groups," don't allow for any exception or exemptions from their feigned quest to "protect you from your government." These people simply say things like, ""We need to catch terrorists and cybercriminals, but there's a way to do that without stripping away individual protections."

But, . . . if they were truly concerned they'd listen to a few of the anecdotal stories they claim to eschew, because they complicate their objectives, and make exceptions for the various freedoms enjoyed by Americans, in so many ways.

They'd also be working to better protect those same citizens, through campaigns to enforce the laws currently in effect, that require adequate prosection of the criminals who commit the crimes of "identity theft," instead of becomming fodder for the politicians who need them for very liberal publicity purposes, instead of conservative traditional ideals.

Don't think for a moment that these issues don't apply to you. You may find that there is one small condition that you aren't even aware of, that will defeat any effort you might develop, where YOU need to know the truth about someone, and a social security number, a phone number, or some other 'personal identifier' will become your saving grace. It may not be an issue today, . . . but this will effect you, or a family member in days, weeks, or even years to come. Don't let these "privacy groups" determine your personal freedom, under the guise of protecting you from your government. You ARE the government. And, you control it at the polls, and by calling or writing those legislative representatives you elect.

Protecting yourself from the evils of terrorism should always be at the forefront of your mind, as you keep up with current laws effecting the protection of you, your family, and your neighbors. There's nothing wrong with questioning the methods used by the government, but don't fall for these "privacy groups" publicity campaigns. They want to take your freedom, and expand their version of the government they claim to oppose.

God Bless,
Dan'L