"Limp" Frist Breaks With Bush on Stem Cells

Since it has become increasingly clear over the last several months that Bill "Limp" Frist is on nobody's short list to become the next Republican Presidential candidate, he has decided to now come out in the open and break with President Bush publically over stem cell research. On the Senate floor, Frist said,

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitation put into place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases...Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding ... and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully, staying within ethical bounds."

This analysis, of course, ignores the fact that the federal government has no business using my tax dollars to fund this research, and there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research is superior to adult stem cell research...there is only supposition. Saying that the government will stay within "within ethical bounds" is laughable...what is ethical about harvesting human life for research?

I find it disgusting that, once again, the supposed leadership of the Republican Party has the moral integrity of a limp noodle. Get rid of Frist now!

NIF also has a link to the NYT story...

Warning: Toilet Hot?!

I do not know what they are using to clean toilets at Denny's, but whatever it is, I think they need a new plan. Kathleen Williams of Kansas has filed suit against Denny's after allegedly receiving serious chemical burns on her derriere while using the Denny's facilities. Washington Times story here.

Death Watch On For Helen Thomas...

One more reason for Dick Cheney to run for President...Helen Thomas has said that if he runs, she will kill herself. This old battleaxe has heckled presidential press secretaries incessantly for years, and her questions are usually along the lines of, "Has President Bush stopped torturing Iraqi babies yet?" In spite of the fact that she is certifiable, she seems to be nearly immortal, so perhaps the only way to get rid of her is if she does the deed herself.

Woo Hoo!! Cheney in '08!!

The Llama Butchers are with me on this...

The Rotting Carcass of "Straight Talk America" Rises Again

John McCain, RINO and proud member of the Republican Filibuster Wimps, has dusted off the stinking corpse known as "Straight Talk America" and is once again poised to attack everyone and everything is sight in his continuing effort to be seen as a "maverick." John likes nothing better than to portray himself as a Washington outsider, when in fact he is every inch the Washington insider, and has nothing more on his tiny mind than where the next photo-op is (never get between "Straight Talk" and a camera...it could cost you your life). Be prepared for more "concern" from John about the state of the Republican Party as he gears up to announce for 2008.

John McCain wouldn't know what straight talk was if it bit him on the...ankle. This guy dances back and forth across the aisle in the Senate, spinning like a ballerina on meth. If you want his vote, be ye Republican or Democrat, come hat in hand and begging for the notice of the "maverick." He doesn't give a damn about anything but his own power base, and he will sell out the Republican party for a dime. If he had believed Francois Kerry could have won, he would have been Democrat VP candidate. He pushes legislation he knows is unconstitutional (McCain-Feingold) because it makes a good soundbite ("We're cleaning up CORRUPTION").

John, do us all a favor and re-embalm your "straight talk."

Also served up with lunch at Basils' Blog...

Dick Durbin--Working On His Howard Dean Impression

Dick Durbin seems to be a man never content with the truth if there is an opportunity to dissimulate. Take the July 25 story in the Los Angeles Times by Jonathan Turley--Turley stated that, according to two people present at a meeting between Durbin and SCOTUS nominee John Roberts, Durbin asked Judge Roberts what he would do if he had to make a ruling contrary to Catholic dogma. According to Turley's sources, Roberts told the Senator that if that were the case he would recuse himself.

The report seems to have caused some concern among conservative and Catholic court-watchers, who see such questions as symptomatic of an anti-(conservative)Catholic prejudice. Here's where it gets a little weird...Durbin's Press Secretary, Joe Shoemaker, accused Mr. Turley of being inaccurate; according to them, Durbin never asked the question, and Roberts never answered it. Shoemaker specifically said, "I don't know who was his source. Whoever the source was either got it wrong or Turley got it wrong."

Senator John Cornyn then said that, when he asked Judge Roberts about the column, Judge Roberts "assured me that he would not have any difficulties ruling on such issues." I notice that Judge Roberts did not say the question wasn't asked, he just says it doesn't present a problem.

So, it seems that: 1) either the source for the story lied about the question being asked and answered, or; 2) the source for the story told the truth about the question being asked, but lied about the answer, or; 3) Durbin's office is lying about not asking the question...right? Except Durbin and Shoemaker were the sources for the story in the first place. Turley got it direct from Durbin, and read the story back verbatim to Shoemaker, who verified it.

So either Durbin's lying or Durbin's lying or Durbin's lying...take your pick. Oh, waitaminnit...now he says that he was the source for the story, but Mr. Turley "incorrectly captured the private conversation" and Mr. Durbin doesn't have an anti-Catholic "litmus test" for court nominees. Mr. Shoemaker refused to comment on the fact that, according to Mr. Turley, he specifically verified the story.

This has to be a continuing source of embarrassment to the Democrats...not Durbin specifically, I mean the fact that their leaders keep getting caught saying stupid things and lying about it. Maybe Bill and Hillary could conduct a seminar on how to lie consistently and with a straight face.

Yes, It's True...

I am 21% Idiot.

I am not annoying at all. In fact most people come to me for advice. Of course they annoy the hell out of me. But what can I do? I am smarter than most people.

Take the
Idiot Test
@ FualiDotCom

Islam -- Still A Religion of Violence

Although I generally have nothing in common with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, (since "humanism" is just code for "atheist"), I was glad to see them prodding the UN regarding the atrocities committed by muslims in the name of their religion. David Littman of the IHEU was attemptng to address the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights to condemn killing in the name of religion, but was unable to complete his remarks due to interference by islamic representatives.

Littman was trying to point out that, while many in this country and around the world have been hoodwinked into thinking that islam is essentially a religion of peace, the fact is that high-ranking muslim clerics support and defend murder and suicide bombing. They take the view that suicide bombers are not apostate, but are good muslims, and that terror attacks are permissible as part of islam.

As usual, we can expect no reaction from the UN. Once again, I would note that there is no reason for the US to continue to be in this organization. If the islamic UN states will not condemn terror in the name of their religion, we ought to demand their expulsion or withdraw from the UN ourselves. We are under the roof of a building in New York City playing nice with countries that covertly rejoice over 9/11.

Abortion and Federalists and Privilege--Oh My!!

Now that the Lefties are really starting to rant, it's time to take another look at their latest efforts to derail the Roberts' SCOTUS nomination. So far, I would have to give them a B+ for effort, but a C- for results...

What have we really got so far? Not much. First, Roberts helped write anti-abortion briefs as an attorney. OK, you can write briefs for lots of things, including things you don't personally agree with. Moreover, even if your personal feelings run in one direction, it doesn't mean that a thinking, rational person can't decide, as a judge, to put his or her personal feelings aside and rule with whatever he or she concludes the law is (not should be).

Second, Roberts is listed in the "Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998," but claims to have no memory of ever having been in the Federalist Society, let alone having been in leadership. This is considered highly suspicious by the Left, and Nan Aron, the President of Alliance for Justice, thinks "the Senate needs to go behind the glowing accounts of Roberts's record to figure out what he really thinks and what he really did." Just a thought on this...I once joined the Federalist Society while I was in law school...um, well, or at least I attended a few meetings, and I might have filled out a form to join, or I might not have. So I can tell you, without equivocation, that if you asked me if I was a member of the Federalist Society, I would have to say I have no memory of actually having been in the Federalist Society, though I attended Federalist Society functions, just like Judge Roberts did.

"But how could he be in leadership and not remember?" Well, when I was in a large firm (similar to Hogan & Hartson), a partner took me aside and suggested I get involved in some boards in the community, get some "name recognition" for the future. Often this involved nothing more than being at the right party or function and having somebody say, "Hey, you would be a great addition to XYZ ... would that be OK? We might occasionally want a bit of legal advice." I would say OK and often would get a little ink saying I had joined the board of XYZ charity. Sometimes I would wind up with an active role, sometimes I would never hear from them again. Although Roberts is listed in a "leadership" directory, being on the "steering committee" is, I would guess, a pretty honorary position--and probably he got listed by handing somebody a business card at a luncheon and promptly forgetting the conversation.

Lastly, Patrick Leahy is already throwing a tantrum about the fact that certain documents prepared by Roberts or connected to his work for the first Bush Administration are privileged. "'If the White House announcement is intended to begin a dialogue about documents, I welcome it,' said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Judiciary Democrat. 'If it is intended to unilaterally pre-empt a discussion about documents the Senate may need and is entitled to, then this is a regrettable beginning.'" Now, lest you think that the White House is not giving the committee any documents, be aware that 75,000 documents have been supplied, and more are on the way.

Moreover, although the Democrats will take the position that this is somehow Roberts' way of hiding the ball, the attorney-client privilege is not his to waive...the privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney, and it would be inappropriate and unwise for the current Bush Administration to waive the privilege of the former Bush administration and turn over the legal thoughts and strategies of the past Republican administration to the very people who oppose them...the Lefties of NOW, the ACLU, the PFAW, and Planned Parenthood, among others. (Just by-the-by, although some folks think Arlen Specter is "on board" with this nomination, he is one of the voices expressing concern over getting more documents for the Dems to pore over.)

In sum, there's a lot of smoke so far, not a lot of heat. More as this develops further.

Tunnel Builders Caught on US--Canadian Border

On Thursday, US and Canadian enforcement agencies closed a 360-foot tunnel going across the Canadian border north of Seattle, and charged its builders with conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana. According to the reports, the Canadian border guards noticed large amounts of building materials going into a quonset hut on the Canadian side of the border, and lots of dirt coming out, but they couldn't figure out what was being built, so they tipped off investigators who have now arrested five people in connection with the scheme.

"They were smart enough to build a sophisticated tunnel," U.S. Attorney John McKay said in this border town about 90 miles north of Seattle. "They weren't smart enough to not get caught."

What I want to know is, why bother to build a tunnel at all? This is the same border that Gregory Depres crossed carrying "a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, brass knuckles and a chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood." And, if you recall, Mr. Depres looks like Pee-Wee Herman on crack. Yet he got across the border.

And if you don't feel like taking your chances with the pot hidden in your car or truck, you can always just walk it across the border at one of the many places the border is relatively unguarded. "Dozens of crossings are marked by orange cones and a "Closed" sign late at night. Travelers are expected to go the nearest 24-hour station. They used to be unwatched; today, they are monitored by border agents."

Monitored--not staffed. Or you could just jump the border in one of the areas where "the international boundary is "a ditch so puny a person could leap it."

What were they thinking, wasting their time building a tunnel?

Here's A Constitutional Amendment We Can Forget About....

In the movie "Demolition Man," set several decades in the future, Sylvester Stallone's character expresses his disbelief that there is a "Schwarzenegger Presidential Library." Sandra Bullock's character tells him that Aaaanold became eligible and was elected after passage of the 61st Amendment. In real life, after he became Governor of California, there were whispers that it might be time to consider the reality that the Aaaanold phenomenon could necessitate such an amendment.

Life will not be imitating art in this case, however.

Although you might think anyone would be a vast improvement after Gray Davis, the former Governor who was ridden out of town on a rail, you would apparently be underestimating Aaaanold's stupidity and cupidity. Reuters reports that, after he vetoed a bill to regulate the distribution of diet supplements to high school athletes last year, it was discovered that Aaaanold signed a deal with the publisher of "Flex" and "Muscle and Fitness" magazines to be an "executive director" to the tune of $1 to $2+ million a year. The LA Times reports that, according to SEC documents, Aaaanold signed with American Media two days before his inauguration and makes more than the CEO of the company.

Aaaanold's approval rating has dropped 18 points since February. The chair of the state Democrat party has filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission, and democrats are indicating that they plan to milk this for all it's worth to undermine Schwarzenegger's proposed goverment reforms.

Put that Constitutional Amendment on hold, Sandra...

Now It Begins

Over at Hoystory, it is noted that the Center for American Progress's statement on John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court is "wary, but responsible..."

So I started to look around to see the other lefty reaction:

People for the American Way--"People for the American Way is extremely disappointed that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor. John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues..."

Planned Parenthood--"President Bush's nomination last night of Judge John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court raises serious questions and grave concerns about women's health and safety. This morning, Planned Parenthood staff and supporters, including the "Roe Rangers," gathered at the court to demonstrate that concern. Because Roberts has gone on record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, it is imperative that the Senate conduct a thorough and independent review before approving a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court. Roberts must affirm his commitment to constitutional protections for women's health and reproductive rights." (I hope never to meet a "Roe Ranger" in a dark alley--or anywhere else.)

The ACLU--"The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court...'Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct...The stakes could not be higher,'"according to Anthony Romero, ACLU executive director. (This is ACLU-speak for "lying about the nominee is OK, since the ends justify the means, and we know what's good for you better than you do." It also links the nominee to heinous past events that have nothing to do with the matter at hand without actually accusing him of anything.)

NOW--"Bush Picks Anti-Roe Judge...Women's Lives on the Line" (No, I'm not kidding, that's what it says).

NARAL --"Help Save the Supreme Court From President Bush: Tell Your Senators to Oppose Anti-Choice John Roberts!... If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade."

So for all those blogging out there today that this is going to be a slam-dunk winner and the lefties are going to be reasonable and responsible, guess again.

Over-Analysis of Supreme Court Nominees

Well, it has been a long wait, but it is time once again for pundits everywhere to begin analyzing the President's pick for SCOTUS, John Roberts. Does he favor big business or protect environmental rights? Is he pro-life or pro-death? Does he believe in the radical view of the Establishment Clause the Court has adopted, or is he more of a "Free-Exerciser"? Is he for original intent, or does he think the meaning of the Constituation changes with the times? Does he walk to work or carry his lunch? Speaking of lunch, where has his Coke can been, and who has it been near?

Let me just interject something here, before we all decide whether his views will result in his being confirmed or not...this all doesn't matter. All that matters is that George W. Bush nominated him, and therefore he will be in for a terrible beating from the Left, win or lose. Table after table of lefties will come up to testify and express their "grave concerns" about his "judicial temperament." NOW and NARAL and Planned Parenthood and the ACLU will deluge the Judiciary Committee with papers and opinions tegarding the potential danger to Roe. Sentences in the footnotes of his opinions will be dissected and diagrammed and parsed to prove he's a closet Nazi. He's probably an anti-Semite, just nobody told him yet (ask Robert Bork).

Don't be surprised if false accusations are made about anything and everything, from his home life, to his work life, to his political views--it is all fair game in the minds of the Ted Kennedys and Chuck Schumers of the world. These hearings are going to be like one of those movies you went to see as a kid that you couldn't watch, so you put your hands over your eyes and peeked through your fingers.

Will he ultimately get confirmed? I don't know. As I said yesterday, this is the kind of nomination that Arlen Specter is in a position to sink unless the President is doing the requisite arm-twisting. Up to now, the Senate leadership and the President have been more compromisers than arm-twisters. It's time to twist 'em--and break 'em off if necessary.

Check out Basil's Blog for links to other opinions on the nomination.

Arlen Specter, Political Hack...Excuse Me For Being Redundant...

Is anyone else totally sick of Arlen Specter? Why is he the Chair of the Judiciary Committee during a conservative Administration when we need every vote on that committee and in the Senate to be solidly with the president?

Specter is the Sandra Day O'Connor of the Senate...he loves the limelight of controlling (and destroying) conservative judicial nominees in the same way that Sandy-Baby loved controlling the direction of the Court...and now we're going to have to endure the tedium of looking at his ugly mug once again and listening to his nasal whine as he pretends to know more about Constitutional law than an experienced jurist. I predict that, unless the President either nominates a liberal (I'll just call it what it is and not pretend Specter wants a "moderate"), or has something he can use to force Specter to play ball on the right team, Specter will not hesitate to vote with the Democrats and lead a Charge of the Lightweight Brigade in the Republican party to stop his own President from exercising his Constitutional prerogative to choose members of the Supreme Court.

Having lived in a state where Specter was one of my senators and another state where Hillary Clinton and Chucky Schumer were my senators, I can tell you that they are three of a kind...their position on any issue can be predicted by gauging its effect on their political ambitions...but at least with Chucky and Hillary they are upfront about being liberal nits.

Lucas Davenport's 100 Greatest Rock Songs

Sorry I have been away for a few days. I was visiting my dad, and had a great time, including a nice day hanging out with him and my uncle Bob. We sat around and solved all the world's problems, but I forget the answers. I should have written them down.

Anyway, I also got to read "Broken Prey," the latest Lucas Davenport mystery by John Sandford, and in it Lucas's wife gives him an iPod and 100 songs...Lucas sees this as a challenge, as he only wants the 100 best songs of all time...he begins compiling a list (with a little help from his friends). Anyway, here's my thought...this list stinks...help me fix it...take out a song and add a song...you can take out as many as you want, but you have to add one for every one you take off the list, OK? Here's the list...

Lucas Davenport’s "Best Songs of the Rock Era"

In no particular order, except that, as any intelligent person knows, any decent road trip will start with ZZ Top.

1. ZZ Top, "Sharp-Dressed Man"

2. ZZ Top, "Legs"

3. Wilson Pickett, "Mustang Sally"

4. Crash Test Dummies, "Superman’s Song"

5. David Essex, "Rock On"

6. Golden Earring, "Radar Love"

7. Blondie, "Heart of Glass"

8. Jefferson Airplane, "White Rabbit"

9. Jefferson Airplane, "Somebody to Love"

10. Derek and the Dominoes, "Layla"

11. Doors, "Roadhouse Blues"

12. Animals, "House of the Rising Sun"

13. Aerosmith, "Sweet Emotion"

14. Aerosmith, "Dude (Looks Like a Lady)";
Led Zeppelin, "Stairway to Heaven"

15. Bruce Springsteen, "Dancing in the Dark"

16. Bruce Springsteen, "Born to Run"

17. Bruce Springsteen, "Thunder Road"

18. Police, "Every Breath You Take"

19. Tom Waits, "Heart of Saturday Night"

20. Van Halen, "Hot for Teacher"

21. Who, "Won’t Get Fooled Again"

22. Gipsy Kings, "Hotel California"

23. Tracy Chapman, "Give Me One Reason"

24. Creedence Clearwater Revival, "Down on the Corner"

25. Eagles, "Lyin’ Eyes"

26. Eagles, "Life in the Fast Lane"

27. Dire Straits, "Skateaway"

28. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, "Mary Jane’s Last Dance"

29. Janis Joplin, "Me 'n Bobby McGee"

30. The Doobie Brothers, "Black Water"

31. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, "I Love Rock ‘n Roll"

32. John Mellencamp, "Jack and Diane"

33. Pink Floyd, "Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)"

34. Pink Floyd, "Money"

35. Billy Joel, "Piano Man"

36. Eric Clapton, "After Midnight"

37. Eric Clapton, "Lay Down Sally"

38. AC/DC, "You Shook Me All Night Long"

39. AC/DC, "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap"

40. The Hollies, "Long Cool Woman (in a Black Dress)"

41. Bob Dylan, "Like a Rolling Stone"

42. Bob Dylan, "Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door"

43. Bob Dylan, "Subterranean Homesick Blues"

44. The Rolling Stones, "Satisfaction"

45. The Rolling Stones, "Brown Sugar"

46. The Rolling Stones, "Sympathy for the Devil"

47. Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK";
Social Distortion, "Story of My Life"

48. Grateful Dead, "Sugar Magnolia"

49. The Pointer Sisters, "Slow Hand"

50. Eurythmics, "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)"

51. Elvis Presley, "Jailhouse Rock"

52. David Bowie, "Ziggy Stardust"

53. Bob Seger, "Night Moves"

54. The Everly Brothers, "Bye Bye Love"

55. Jimi Hendrix, "Purple Haze"

56. The Kinks, "Lola"

57. Jackson Browne, "Tender is the Night"

58. The Kingsmen, "Louie Louie"

59. George Thorogood and the Destroyers, "Bad to the Bone"

60. Metallica, "Turn the Page"

61. Lynryd Skynyrd, "Sweet Home Alabama"

62. Queen, "We Will Rock You"

63. The Allman Brothers Band, "Ramblin’ Man"

64. Led Zeppelin, "Rock ‘n Roll"

65. Tina Turner, "What’s Love Got to Do With It"

66. Steppenwolf, "Born to Be Wild"

67. U2, "With or Without You"

68. Black Sabbath, "Paranoid"

69. Foreigner, "Blue Morning, Blue Day"

70. Billy Idol, "White Wedding"

71. Guns ’n Roses, "Sweet Child o’ Mine"

72. Guns ‘n Roses, "Paradise City"

73. Guns ‘n Roses, " Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door"*

74. Lou Reed, "Walk on the Wild Side"

75. Bad Company, "Feel Like Makin’ Love"

76. Def Leppard, "Rock of Ages"

77. Van Morrison, "Brown Eyed Girl"

78. Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, "Devil With a Blue Dress On"

79. Aretha Franklin, "Respect"

80. John Lee Hooker and Bonnie Raitt, "I’m in the Mood"

81. James Brown, "I Got You (I Feel Good)"

82. The Righteous Brothers, "Unchained Melody"

83. Prince, "Little Red Corvette"

84. Chuck Berry, "Roll Over Beethoven"

85. The Byrds, "Mr. Tambourine Man"

86. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, "Ohio"

87. Buddy Holly, "Peggy Sue"

88. Jerry Lee Lewis, "Great Balls of Fire"

89. Roy Orbison, "Oh, Pretty Woman"

90. Del Shannon, "Runaway"

91. Run-DMC, "Walk This Way"

92. Otis Redding, " (Sittin’ on) the Dock of the Bay"

93. Nirvana, "Smells Like Teen Spirit"

94. Paul Simon, "Still Crazy After All These Years"

95. Bo Diddley, "Who Do You Love? "

96. Brewer and Shipley, "One Toke Over the Line";
Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Gimme Three Steps"

97. Ramones, "I Wanna Be Sedated"

98. The Clash, "Should I Stay or Should I Go"

99. Talking Heads, "Burning Down the House"

100. Dmitri Shostakovich, "Jazz Suite No. 2: Waltz 2"

* Yeah, yeah, I know it’s on the list twice.

I am taking off "One Toke over the Line" by Brewer and Shipley...I can't believe anybody would put this on a greatest rock songs list...its a nice little ditty, but come on...I am adding "Gimme Three Steps" by Lynyrd Skynyrd (which is better than "Sweet Home Alabama" any day of the week). C'mon rock fans, join the party.

Our Prayers Are With Our British Friends

God Bless Chief Justice Rehnquist

I do not know what the Chief Justice's symptoms or prognosis are, as of this hour, but I know he has worked as hard as humanly possible, and beyond, over a 33-year career on the bench of the Supreme Court for this country, not to mention his prior contributions. In my view, Chief Justice Rehnquist has remained true to his calling, true to the legal and judicial professions, and true to the Constitution of the United States.

God Bless You tonight, Mr. Chief Justice!!

The ACLU's Gitmo Smoking Guns

I think I will be posting my blogburst early this week, as I will be on the road Wednesday through Friday or Saturday. I have some thoughts on the ACLU and its unceasing efforts to portray the Guantanamo "illegal enemy combatant detainees" as martyrs and victims. The ACLU would like to prove that our government and the members of the Bush administration have tortured these poor fellas who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In fact, I doubt the ACLU gives a hoot about these detainees, it would just like to see the Administration embarrassed, if not ousted. This is simply an extension of a time-honored credo of the ACLU, "conservative=bad; liberal= good."

If you go to the ACLU website, you will notice on the front page the caption "Torture Documents" in the left margin. This is sure to titillate the casual ACLU site reader, I am sure...then you navigate your way to a page captioned "Government Documents on Torture," which informs you that the ACLU has documents "the government did not want the public to see"!! Oh, the Humanity!! What could these foul miscreants of government have done to these poor boys! Everyone knows the Administration and its military-industrial complex are the lowest form of human life, what miry depths could they have sunk to now? The Rack? The Iron Maiden? Beds of Nails?

Well, not exactly...I started to go through these summaries and re-summarize them to make them more easily digestible, but it was a little too boring, tedious and pointless--they consist of a combination of whining and unsubstantiated allegations by detainees--you will either, like the ACLU, see a pattern of "torture" in them, or you will, like me, see very little of substance, punctuated by instances of possible violence. Let me suggest that it is likely that any prison in the US would have more instances of violence per capita than what are recounted in these "smoking gun" documents about Guantanamo.

In addition to the "torture," I would be remiss if I did not add that one detainee confessed that one uprising was caused by another detainee dropping a koran on the ground and blaming it on a guard. Moreover, to show you how mind-numbed these Islamic robots are, one confessed that, although he was engaged in a hunger strike because of poor treatment by the guards, he had never been abused, or seen any cruelty by the guards, nor had he heard any of the derogatory comments the guards supposedly made.

You can see for yourself what's actually in these so-called "Torture Documents" but here are some of the highlights of the "torture" (and keep in mind, these are interviews of detainees--this is the worst they could come up with):

Sometimes the guards push detainees around; sometimes, after emptying their waste buckets, they "throw" them back to the detainees, sometimes with waste
still in them. (slop bucket detail might make me a little testy at times, too--I don't imagine the crack troops were doing this.) The detainees are being forced to shower, dress and use the bathroom in front of others. (Such a shame).

One detainee complains he is not sleeping well. (Conscience?) He is diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress syndrome and depression. He dreams about being beaten (Justice?). One detainee says he was treated harshly by soldiers at Peshawar and Kandahar--no mention of Gitmo or the circumstances that provoked the "harsh treatment" elsewhere. One detainee confesses that uprising at Gitmo blamed on guards was caused by detainee dropping koran on ground and blaming a guard. One detainee says that guards' "behavior is bad." The specifics? Other than one claimed beating 5 months previously, the sum of the bad behavior is that guards "dance around" during detainees prayers. (I'm trying hard to picture American Military personnel dancing around to muslim prayers, not quite getting there.)

Several Detainees claim they were beaten in Bagram and Kandahar, but do not mention Guantanamo. Another detainee says he has not been abused while in American custody. One detainee claims his prayer cap was thrown in the trash by a guard (find that guard and shoot him).

Another detainee claims that, upon his capture, he was tortured for 2 days and wound was not treated...no mention of treatment at Guantanamo. Another
detainee recants his confession because he claims he confessed under threat of
Pakistani torture. Detainee claims he was kicked and "had cold water thrown on
him." One detainee thinks the other detainees believe he is a spy, which is causing him stress...He confesses having mental problems in the past...he has been moved to isolation at his request. Another detainee says he won't talk until his treatment gets better--(he had "comfort items" removed from his cell due to his bad behavior).

One detainee claims that detainees are beaten and treated worse than a dog, but is mysteriously unable to provide any details. One Detainee admits that he has never seen any cruelty by the guards or personally heard any derogatory comments by the guards, but is on a hunger strike anyway, because the guards are treating the detainees like animals.

This goes on and on. Now, let me be clear (not that it will do any good): I am not saying no prisoner was ever beaten at Guantanamo Bay, and I am not saying that no act of violence ever occurred at Guantanamo Bay, and I am not saying that the koran was never abused (although I find that a silly issue, since they admit to doing it themselves). What I am saying is that, when you look at all these "smoking gun" "documents the government never wanted you to see", what I see is a bunch of unrelated incidents, attested to only by people with an axe to grind--ACLU, for once let the government do its job and stay out of this issue. These are not Americans, so their Civil Liberties should be of no interest to you in any case.

Joining a Gym

Since I am in a sedentary profession, I decided this week to officially accept the fact that I am middle-aged and out of shape and join a gym, er... health club, er...fitness center--well whatever it is, it has machines and weights and stuff. Anyhow, part of the deal is to have a couple of sessions with a trainer, and I thought this was a good idea, since I don't know how to work all the machines in the gym. What a mistake.

Let me tell you something right now...never let a trainer get hold of you...I think this guy's name was Genghis...no wait, it was Greg, it just sounded like Genghis after awhile...I said I wanted to work on my legs and abs, so he has me do about 100,000 squats, followed by 50,000 leg curls followed by about a million crunches. Then he has the audacity to say "how're you doing?" I said, "you mean other than wanting to puke on your shoes?"

I managed to stumble to the car and luckily the gym is only a few blocks from my house. So I get home, my wife says, "What happened, were you in an accident?" I gasp "noooooo" and fall into a chair...she then says, "I'm taking you to the hospital" and I am thinking, "yeah, right, I get to the hospital and they say 'what happened?' and I say 'Genghis.'" So I tell my wife, "No, I'm fine dear." So after an hour or so she gets over her solicitous attitude and for the next two days, as I stagger around on legs made of jell-o, she makes fun of her "old man." Nice.

So, am I quitting? No way. Back to the gym, uh fitness center, for more torture...I will keep ya'll posted.

Was Terrorist From Gitmo?

According to the Northeast Intelligence Network, they have information from inside the Pentagon that one of the terrorists involved in the London bombings was a released Guantanamo Bay detainee. At this point the story is not confirmed, but if true it only emphasizes the importance of not caving in to calls from the left to "charge or release" these illegal combatants as long as there is any shred of doubt about their roles in terrorism.

Update--As of 10:30 pm, the Pentagon source was standing by this story, saying, "one of the bombers who is believed to be involved in this attack was recently released from the prison at Guantanamo, Cuba."

Islamic Cowards Kill More Innocent Civilians

That's what this is, and that's what there is to say about it. Some bunch of nuts calling themselves the "Secret Organization of Al-Qaeda in Europe" says they were the ones who set off the bombs in London this morning. At least 33 are dead and hundreds are wounded. They proclaim themselves to be "heroic mujahedeen" and warn "all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

These spineless murderers think themselves heroes, and morons like Bill Maher and other luminaries of the left probably agree with them...Now is the time for the President to call on the spineless Kerry-esque wimps of the left in this country to stand up for Democracy and get on board with our efforts to eradicate (yes eradicate) al-Qaeda and all other groups like al-Qaeda...I don't really want to hear any more crap about how peaceful Islam is and how we ought to just try to get along with these loons. We need to find them and destroy them, and if we have to do more than turn up the air-conditioning and play loud rock music to get answers out of these creeps, we ought to do what it takes.

It's Blogburst Thursday

Seeing as how the ACLU opened its new website, Take Issue, Take Charge, last week (a website whose professed mission is to stop the teaching of sexual abstinence until marriage to teens in favor of "responsible sexuality"--it is part of the ACLU's "reproductive freedom project" (whatever that means)) it is only fair that Stop the ACLU gets its grand opening this week.

The ACLU stands for, and will continue to stand for, the right to kill unborn children at will; the right to peddle and possess child pornography; the right to disseminate information about how to be a pedophile and get away with it; the right of a minor to kill an unborn child without even informing her parents; the right of illegal aliens to enter the US and receive all the benefits of a citizen; the right of homosexuals to marry, adopt children and receive all the benefits of marriage; the right of felons to vote; the right to burn the flag of the United States; and the right not to be "offended" by public displays of religious belief (although our forefathers came to this land to find freedom to practice one's religion).

What rights do they stand against? The right of the unborn to life, the most basic of all rights; the right of parents to have their children educated as they see fit, and not brainwashed by secular humanism; the right to have the symbols of the historic Judeo-Christian roots of our country displayed in public; the right to pray in public; the right to recognize that our nation was founded "under God"; the right of the Boy Scouts or other groups to have equal access to public facilities with secular or atheistic groups; the right to protect our borders from illegal immigration; the right to know when there is a sexual predator living in your neighborhood; and the right not to have children exploited and abused and even murdered by pornographers and pedophiles.

The ACLU has used a propaganda machine to portray itself as a defender of "rights"...the question you have to ask yourself is: Are these the "rights" you want defended? The Pulpit Pounder encourages you to visit Stop the ACLU and join our efforts to curtail the ACLU's unchecked attack on the real freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. To join us go to our Protest The ACLU Portal and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and receive further instruction from there. If you have any trouble email Jay at Jay@Stoptheaclu.com.

One More Reason to Leave the UN

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has announced its intention to push for a permanent "Islamic" seat on the UN Security Council. This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the OIC, said "The Islamic world, which represents one fifth of total mankind, cannot remain excluded from the activities of the Security Council which assumes a fundamental role in keeping security and peace in the world,"

First of all, if Islamic nations feel excluded, it might be because they represent the most destabilizing force in the world. I don't know about you, but when I think "world security," the first thing that pops to mind is not "those peaceful and security-conscious Islamic states."
If they want to be a part of "security and peace in the world" maybe they could start by closing the terrorist training camps in their own countries, executing terrorists instead of reporters, not teaching religious hatred to their children and policing the dictatorships in their midst.

Second, since when is UN representation and decision-making based on religion? Do conservative Christians get a Security Council seat if Islam does? How about Catholics? What about Mormons? This is supposed to be an organization for nations, not religions. If there are no Islamic states on the Security Council, maybe it says something about countries run by Islam, not about the Security Council.

To me, this is just another reason to put the UN on a ship and send it elsewhere...it is only going to get worse, not better.

Hat Tip to Pamela at Atlas Shrugs.

My Son the Celebrity

Well, maybe not, but my son the sushi chef made the front page of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Saturday...he is working for California Rollin' II, a sushi bar at the new "Fast Ferry" terminal in Rochester, that connects Toronto and Rochester. Check out his pic here. (He's the one in the Steeler hat...)

NASA: Messing With Karma, or Mojo, or Something

Astrologist Marina Bai is reportedly suing NASA for $300,000,000 in the aftermath of the crash of "Deep Impact" into the Tempel 1 comet. According to Reuters, Ms. Bai believes that the crash will interfere with her horoscopes. It is not clear whether she believes that all of our eternal destinies have been changed by NASA's meddling with the comet, or merely her ability to accurately predict the future.

I can't wait to see the complaint...

Update--in a related story, Nickie Goomba reports that a Chicago "Beaker" look-alike is also suing NASA for potential love-life damage...

Congress Does the Unthinkable--Its Job!

Thanks to Vilmar at Ranting Right Wing Howler for the heads-up that Congress is actually moving to do something about the already infamous (as in sure to go down in history with the worst SCOTUS decisions ever) Kelo case. For those of you who were on vacation orbiting Pluto, that was the case in which Justice Stevens stated that a municipality can use the power of eminent domain to take property and give it to another private owner as a "public use" of the land, so long as "[t]he city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Justice O'Connor's dissent summed it up this way: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random...The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Congress is now considering legislation that would hamper if not stop municipalities' efforts to seize private property on behalf of other private interests. Bravo! What interests me is that it takes a real hue and cry by the public to get Congress interested in fighting the Supreme Court, when in fact, this is what Congress's real job is.

We seem to forget that, just because there are only a few of them (as opposed to Congress or the President's administration) and they wear black robes and sit in a nice courtroom and act as though they possess all knowledge and all wisdom, the Supreme Court of the United States is not royalty. They are one part of a system of checks and balances, and it is not incumbent upon or wisefor the other branches of government to roll over and play dead every time the Court lifts its finger in their direction.

The division of authority in the Constitution assumes that mistakes can be made and power can corrupt--that's why we have an executive, a legislative and a judicial branch instead of a sole executive in power. Congress should begin doing its job more often by curbing the Supreme Court's often ludicrous rulings. It's a refreshing change.

UPDATE-- Apparently I made a mistake in my discussion above, so I want to make a correction, forgive me...I said the Supreme Court was not royalty, but one part of a system of checks and balances...Nancy Pelosi has set me straight--she points out that, when the Court rules on a Constitutional issue "It is almost as if God has spoken." Boy, is my face red--here I thought these were just normal humans like you and me, and all along they were deity. Thanks to Jeff at ThinkSink and the Corner at NRO for helping me out on this.