Bush to TSA: One Strike and Yer Out!

It's good to see that President Bush has pledged to veto legislation that would allow TSA screeners to enter into collective bargaining. The role of the TSA is so crucial to our safety in the air that it should not have the right to attempt to impose work rules that would hinder the effectiveness (and safety) of the role screeners play in keeping us safe. Recall the Air Traffic Controllers that were fired by President Reagan for striking...this is a great sign that the President will continue to place the safety of the flying public ahead of the right to negotiate mission creep (aka work rules) for this group of employees. Bravo.

(Aside -- I'll get letters from my family on this. My wife's grandfather was a founder of the union at Ford, and was beaten up by Ford goons on many occasions. So that side of the family is still pretty liberal.)

Also, it's great news that a group of Senators has written to the President with a pledge to support his promised veto of this legislation. Here's a copy of the letter from the Senators to the President.

Let's keep the Friendly Skies as the Safe Skies.

H/T National Review Online

Munich Murtha

Here's Jack Murtha, surrounded by the Democrats in Congress, just after passage of the "Run Away" resolution.

But seriously, read Victor Davis Hanson today on NRO:

Do anti-war critics prefer to invade Pakistan? [Victor Davis Hanson]

I was watching the Scarborough cable news show this evening, where the talking heads went on and on about the impending Taliban spring offensive as the inevitable wage of our "taking our eye off the ball" by getting bogged down in Iraq-a country that didn't attack us and was not involved in 9/11 related terrorism.

Putting aside Saddam's violations of UN and armistice accords, and his long record of subsidies and sanctuary for various terrorists, or the 23 writs authorizing the war passed by the Congress, and ignoring the fact that over six decades ago, a much poorer United States fought simultaneously Germany, Italy, and Japan, and then in midst of rebuilding western Europe and Japan contained at the same time both communist China and the Soviet Union, there was no mention of WHY the Taliban was supposedly setting up camps with relative impunity in Waziristan and the other badlands of Pakistan.

Neither the host nor the animated guests offered any solution to how the United States is to engage in hot pursuit into or bombs over a nuclear Islamic country run by a dictator whose illegitimate rule hinges on concessions to Islamists. So until they offer a concrete plan on how to go into Pakistan to get al Qaeda, and why the resulting risks would be worth it, all their bombast about war mongering in Iraq preventing a solution to al Qaeda remains just that.

02/19 10:10 PM

H/T National Review Online

Good (and bad) Date in History -- 1/4/72

Just read Scott's post about his birthday, and I almost spit the beer out the nose when I read at the bottom "and the date is now forever marred by"...

Amen, brother. I would laugh if I wasn't so pissed off.

Read it for yourself here.

Oh, yeah, and Happy Birthday (again).

McCain for Prez --- NOT

I received one of those innocuous "surveys" from the McCain Exploratory Campaign, er, PAC today. I usually toss these in the round file unopened (anything with less than First Class postage goes in the round file at my house). But I thought, what the hey, I'll open it and see what the wacko questions would be. Mostly softballs, like "Do you think we should reduce waste in the Social Security System?". Um, er, ah, let's see...that's a tough one. No, no, yes...a bit. Pages and pages of this palaver. So, against my better judgement, I decided to answer the softballs and ask a few of my own, such as:

1. Since 2001, the Federal Budget has increased 52% ($1.9 trillion to $2.9 trillion). What have you done, Senator, to keep the budget in check?

2. In response to questions about the UN (gawd!), I said "Kick the UN out of NYC and stop our funding until the other nations step up and supply troops for Iraq and Afghanistan" After all, they voted for the meaningless resolutions.

3. "When are you going to repeal McCain-Feingold?" It's only the biggest unconstitutional limit on free speech since the invention of the muzzle. And you, Senator McCain, signed a bill with a Senator that wants us to pull out of Iraq TODAY! And I live in Wisconsin where the popcorn-fart Feingold is from. (You've never heard the phrase 'drier than a popcorn fart'? Must be a Texas thing.)

You know...my own softball questions back atcha.

And, as a loyal Republican, I even sent him a check...for exactly 2 cents. Hey, it's my 2 cents worth. I'll post a copy of the cancelled check if they have the guts to cash it.

Duncan Hunter for Prez! (H/T COB)

NBC's William Arkin -- Dumb and dumber

After the controversy he set off with his use of mercenary to describe US troops, Arkin then tried to weasel out and get by with what might be considered an apology by Hillary or Kerry or Murtha or Harry Reid:

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

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.

The above is from a new column written as an apologia. So, he apologises for calling soldiers "mercenary". Then he says the "situation might be much worse..." Gads...they "hide behind the constitution and the flag". Nope. They swear allegiance to BOTH, and stand IN FRONT OF THEM...PROTECTING THEM.

You bet it might be much worse, moron. All of those mercenaries might rise up (as only stupid, undisciplined, and desperate fighters can) and run you off of the road in your...wait, was that a Suburban?

Fox News caught this Greenpeace tree-hugger...loading a full-sized SUV on the way to or from a road trip! "Hey, man, leave me alone while I get outta here in my Suburban...wait, where's the gas station? $2.19 a gallon! That's a crime, man, I should be paying $5 a gallon like our brothers in Eurabia do."

This is your brain...this is your brain on STUPIDITY.

As I've said before, we really NEED morons like this in the world. It sure makes the rest of us plain-ole dumb rednecks look much smarter, don't it?

I'm Remodeling My House

Here's the start of a post from Uncle Jimbo over at Blackfive:

Accommodating Muslim intolerance

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

So now the prisons in the UK are going to turn all their toilets so Muslim criminals can crap in a directionally proper religious manner.

I have called my brother (who's a builder) and asked him to turn all of my toilets so that my ass-end will be pointing toward Mecca.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind..."I fart in your general direction..."

Read the rest of Jimbo here.

Timely...and Timeless quote from Thomas Jefferson

“[A] Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States... as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” —Thomas Jefferson

From Patriot Post...www.patriotpost.us

Amen.

Blinking Pelosi

Got this one from my pal at crotchetyoldbastard.com

COLTS are in the SUPER BOWL

I'm a fan of Indy (as long as they're not playing the Cowboys). Peyton did a great job tonight. In honor of the win...

Chuck Hagel, American Traitor (screed 4)

I believe that we can have a loyal opposition. The problem is, when you're the opposition, you have an obligation to add suggested solutions to your opposition. For instance, let's stipulate that the American public school system is doing a poor job of teaching kids to read by the time they get out of high school. (Aside: If you don't agree to THAT premise, you can't READ). I think the schools are a problem, and I propose competition via vouchers. If you oppose school vouchers, you should state why, and state what your alternative solution is. And that solution should not be "keep the status quo". We've already stipulated that the status quo is a problem.

So...we have a problem in Iraq. In my humble opinion, the problem is NOT that we are not winning. The problem is we've politicised the war...and the soldiers aren't running it (I'm old enough to recall this same conversation about Vietnam...are you?).

The President of the United States has vast quantities of information available to him that you and I are not allowed to see...nor should we be. From my bald head to my toenails, I think Bush believed there were WMD's in Iraq...and, ahem, by the way, so did many Democrats. And there is a LOT more scary stuff out there that I don't know about, and I won't ever know about. But I damn sure want to be protected from it.

I have zero military experience...no jokes about it...it's zero. Who in the world am I to weigh in on whether or not our military strategy is right or wrong? I might say, "Stop, the costs are too high". But even this is not really fair to POTUS. As long as I agree with the premise of "we're in Iraq to root out WMD's, protect us from terrorists using it as a staging area, and stabilize it so that we can be a friend", then POTUS gets to keep doing what he thinks is right.

I say, let the President prosecute the war his way (He's the CINC, after all. Read your Constitution, if you are one the the few, we lucky few, who could read out of high school). I am not in a position to say if he's doing it correctly or incorrectly. If I hear enough bitching from the Colonels and the Majors and the Captains, plus the senior NCO's, who are the tip of the spear, then I'll worry that we've got it wrong.

With all that said, Chuck Hagel strikes me as a traitor. I don't throw that word out there lightly. He wants to cause the US to lose the war in Iraq. If you want us to lose, or to pull out before we're done (that's not a high-school joke), you're for the OTHER SIDE. It's not a normal war (Lee vs Grant). It's bad dudes in the hood acting out, and the rules of engagement need to be "when threatened, shoot first, ask questions later". Plus, let's let the Dems run with one of their favorite themes...gun control. If you're on the street in Iraq with a gun, and you're not a cop or a US or Allied soldier, you get one warning shot, then you're toast. Plus, I don't see a lot of white-tail deer in Iraq, so let's take away their guns for 5 years, and let them earn back the right to own them. (Don't for a minute think I'm for gun control in the US. We have the rule of law in my hood. We don't need to control guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens...we need Concealed Carry...but I digress).

When Hagel wants the US to lose in Iraq, or to pull troops out before we have subdued the bad guys and set up an environment that won't harbor terrorists, he needs to explain a good alternative to setting up that safe environment. If he can't, then strap a chute on Hagel's back and drop him into a Sunni hood in Baghdad. God will sort em out.

Hagel should say, "I don't agree with how the President is prosecuting the war, and his plan does not have my concurrence, but, by God, American soldiers are in harm's way, the CINC sent em, and I'll support 'em". Then Hagel should proceed to tell us how he proposes to win the war...and that war is about keeping the "24", the Clancy, and the David Hagberg scenarios from becoming real.

Chuck "Bonehead" Hagel

Alright, at the risk of 3 screeds in a row, here's a quote from Senator Chuck Hagel (R, NE):

The plan is ``the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,'' Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a hearing of the committee today. (H/T: Bloomberg)

Let's see...Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come to mind as buffoons who committed foreign policy blunders greater than our new plan in Iraq.

Hagel needs to be taken out behind the woodshed by Bush (a la Reagan) and told to toe the damn line. Did Pelosi hit Hagel over the head with the gavel while she was all giddy and waving it around?

Here's a suggestion for Hagel: Head on over to Cabela's and shake hands there, asking these regular folks what they think about our efforts in Iraq. The hell with polls on the left and right coasts; Cabela's will give Chucky a much better picture of what his constituents REALLY think.

I really need to get off these rants...my blood pressure is getting too high.

Harry "Surrender" Reid

You just can't make this stuff up. This POS actually said:

Harry Reid on President Bush:

"I would hope the man realizes that more than 75 percent of his administration has been a total flop," said Reid. "There's 25 percent left. I hope he would [ask], 'What can we do together?' I repeat: It's as if he wants to fail." (H/T: National Review Online)

I am at a loss for words to describe my contempt for this "man". Wasn't there just an article about a woman removing a guys testicles with her bare hands? Nah, couldn't have been Harry...he never had testes in the first place.

The role of the Majority Leader is to reach across the aisle and work out compromises...not toss grenades to see how much (figurative) damage he can do by insulting the President. Even the Marine guards saluted Clinton as he entered and exited MarineOne...they didn't like it, but he was CINC. Poor Harry...he needs a week at boot camp to learn RESPECT.

I repeat: put a parachute on him and drop him into Anbar province with a fountain pen. Hell, drop him into one of the test ranges in Nevada...

Again, for the record (and for the Secret Service), I do NOT wish harm to come to Harry. I am insulted by him and wish to insult him in return.

Dick Durbin, Traitor and Scumbag

Pardon my language, but this jack-off should be voted out of office. Is it any wonder that he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq when this moron votes time after time to deny the citizens of Illinois the right to carry concealed weapons? If a turban-head tries to pull off a crime in Illinois, the most a citizen can legally do is throw spit-balls. Wonderful.

Durbin is a dirtbag that should be dropped into Bagdad with no body armor, no weapon (besides his twisted words), and an "America - Love it or Leave It" shirt on. We can then say goodbye to this waste of air.

I actually feel better now...not as good as if I could bitch-slap him (which I won't do, because assault is against the law). So, I wave my private parts at Dick-head Durbin.

I Want the Bumper Sticker

Check out this post from Crotchety Old Bastard. Gotta love this guy.

http://crotchetyoldbastard.com/blog/2007/01/new_national_emblem.html

More Stupidity in the NYTimes

No real comment needed.

The Times Lies About Enemy Combatant Law [Andy McCarthy]

The Times is flat dishonest in its campaign against subjecting enemy combatants to military proceedings, which the Grey Lady passes off as a page-one news article. Correspondent Tim Golden writes:

Under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in October, this double-wide trailer may be as close to a courtroom as most Guantánamo prisoners ever get. The law prohibits them from challenging their detention or treatment by writs of habeas corpus in the federal courts. Instead, they may only petition a single federal appeals court to examine whether the review boards followed the military’s own procedures in reviewing their status as “enemy combatants.” [Emphasis added.]

It's hard to quantify how inaccurate (and, one is compelled to conclude, disingenuous) this is.

First, the law that governs these detainees is not the Military Commissions Act that President Bush signed in October. As that act makes clear, the review of Combatant Status Review Tribunals is actually governed by a law the president signed a year earlier, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 — specifically, Section 1005 of that law.

Second, by definition, a federal appeals court is not only a federal court; it is also a higher federal court than the single district court to which U.S. citizens must petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Leaving aside, moreover, that it is unprecedented in the history of the United States for enemy prisoners to have access to our courts during wartime to challenge their status as enemy prisoners, the al Qaeda detainees at issue here have actually been given access to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which, aside from being superior to all district courts, is often regarded as second only to the Supreme Court in our judicial hierarchy.

Third, it is simply not true that the D.C. Circuit is limited to examining whether the military's combatant status review tribunals "followed the military's own procedures in reviewing their status as 'enemy combatants.'" To the contrary, in addition to determining whether the military followed its own procedures, Section 1005(e)(2) expressly calls on the court to consider "to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." (Emphasis added.)

To be clear, I believe the alleged combatants — aliens with no U.S. immigration status held by the military outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts during wartime — have no rights under the Constitution, and have rights under federal statutes only to the limited, if any, extent Congress has expressly made those statutes applicable outside our borders. Whether I am right or wrong about that, however, the detainees are still fully entitled to claim that the military's standards and procedures are inconsistent with federal law. They are not, as the Times asserts, limited to challenging whether the military's standards and procedures have been followed.

Fourth, the essence of habeas corpus is the right to claim that one's detention flouts fundamental rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. While the detainees access to the D.C. Circuit is not called "habeas corpus," the Detainee Treatment Act precisely allows them to claim that their detention is in violation of their fundamental rights under U.S. law. Thus, although aliens held outside the U.S. are not constitutionally entitled to habeas review in the federal courts, Congress has substantially given it to them anyway.

Other than that, the Times really did a bang up job on this one.

Hat-tip: The Corner - National Review Online

Legal and Illegal Immigration

I am a big supporter of the border fence (especially in Texas) and really liked the border webcam test project that has just been completed at several Texas border crossings. It looks like the State of Texas is going to fund webcams all along the border.

In today's National Review Online, Charles Murray, libertarian extraordinaire, was asked his views on legal and illegal immigration. I thought this would be timely given the news breaking this morning about Swift Meat immigration raids.

From Charles Murray, via National Review Online:

What's my position on immigration? Well, since apparently someone asked (and I have never published anything on immigration), here goes.

Regarding illegal immigration:

1. Making laws about who gets to become a citizen, under what circumstances, is a legitimate function of the state.

2. Protecting borders is a legitimate function of the state.

3. Enforcing the law is a central function of the state.

4. Immigration reform must begin first with enforcement of existing immigration law. If it takes a wall, so be it.

5. And while I'm at it, I'll mention that English should be the only language in which public school classes are taught (except for teaching English as a foreign language) and in which the public's business is conducted.

Regarding legal immigration:

1. Immigration is one of the main reasons—I'm guessing the main reason apart from our constitution—that we have remained a vital, dynamic culture, but immigration of a particular sort: Self-selection whereby people come here for opportunity. That self-selection process used to apply to everyone. It still applies to the engineers and computer programmers and entrepreneurs who come here from abroad, but it is diluted for low-job-skill workers by the many economic benefits of just being in the United States. Most low-job-skill immigrants work very hard. But Milton Friedman was right: You can't have both open immigration and a welfare state. The tension between the two is inescapable.

2. Massive immigration of legal low-skill workers is problematic for many reasons, and some of them have to do with human capital. Yes, mean IQ does vary by ethnic group, and IQ tends to be below average in low-job-skill populations. One can grant all the ways in which smart people coming from Latin American or African countries are low-job-skill because they have been deprived of opportunity, and still be forced to accept the statistical tendencies. The empirical record established by scholars such as George Borjas at Harvard cannot be wished away.

3. I am not impressed by worries about losing America's Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I'd a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn't read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

4. When it comes to the nitty-gritty, I would get rid of reuniting-families provisions, get rid of the you're-a-citizen-if-you're-born-here rule, and make immigrants ineligible for all benefits and social services except public education for their children. Everybody who immigrates has to be on a citizenship track (no guest workers). And I would endorse a literacy requirement. Having those measures in place, my other criteria for getting permission to immigrate would be fairly loose. Just having to get through the bureaucratic hoops will go a long way toward reinstalling a useful self-selection process. But, to go back to basics: None of this works unless illegal immigration is effectively ended.

I suppose other libertarians will disagree, but I don't see a single item in this approach that runs against the principles of classical liberalism.

Charles Murray

Hat Tip: National Review Online

Thanks to our Military -- and to hell with the ISG

I have the pleasure and honor to know many active-duty and retired military men and women. The quote below aptly represents, to a man, the attitude and spirit of each and every one of them. Too often we forget to say "thank you".

The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily

"I am not influenced by the expectation of promotion or
pecuniary reward. I wish to be useful, and every kind of
service necessary for the public good, become honorable
by being necessary."

-- Nathan Hale (remark to Captain William Hull, who
had attempted to dissuade him from volunteering for
a spy mission for General Washington, September 1776)

THANK YOU.

Hat Tip: Patriot Post's Founders' Quote Daily

Traveler Profiling by the Feds -- Go Go Go

The Dept of Homeland Security and whoever it designates hereby has my permission to collect the data about me indicated in this story, as well as any other data it deems necessary to insure that I am not a security risk while flying. I've been a frequent flyer for 25 years, with over 2.7 million miles on Delta alone. I feel MUCH safer if they do this to EVERYONE flying.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS

Feds Quietly Assign Terror Risk Scores to Millions of Americans

Thursday, November 30, 2006

WASHINGTON — For the past four years, without public notice, federal agents have assigned millions of Americans and other international travelers computer-generated scores assessing the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments. And the government intends to keep them on file for 40 years.

Earlier in November, the government disclosed the existence and details of the Automated Targeting System (ATS) for the first time in the Federal Register. Privacy and civil liberties lawyers, congressional aides and even law enforcement officers said they thought the ATS had been applied only to cargo.

• Get more coverage at the Homeland Security Center.

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meals they ordered.

The Homeland Security Department notice called it "one of the most advanced targeting systems in the world" and said U.S. ability to spot criminals and other security threats "would be critically impaired without access to this data."

Still, privacy advocates view ATS with alarm. "It's probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected," David Sobel, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group devoted to electronic data issues, said in an interview.

A similar DHS data-mining project for domestic air travelers — now known as Secure Flight — caused a furor two years ago in Congress, which has barred its implementation until it can pass 10 tests for accuracy and privacy protection.

So Help Me, Mohammed

I promise this will not turn into a rant.

Below is a link to a Dennis Prager column from today, stating that our one and only Muslim elected to Congress wants to swear on the Koran, not the Bible, during his oath of office. Mr. Prager makes THE salient point about this in his column -- what happens if an elected official wants to swear on a stack of Playboys? No, I'm not making this up -- read the article from the link below. Here are the first two paragraphs:

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Read the entire article here.

H/T Townhall.com

New element Asinine-90

More from National Review Online...

Kerry Can't Apologize [Jonah Goldberg]
If you take Kerry's two statements — the written and unwritten — in their entirety, I really don't think he can apologize at this point. I really do think he could have defused this whole thing, maybe not entirely, by simply saying "I botched the joke and I'm really sorry it sounded like I was diminishing the talent and work of our troops, something I would never do. I take a back seat to no one in my respect for blah blah blah..." But now he's questioned the sanity, the integrity and the manliness of anybody who could have possibly taken him the wrong way. That means, in effect, that he's calling all these servicemen who understandably took offense at the plain meaning of his words, wusses and nutters. That makes Kerry a tool of the first order. And, if he apologizes now, with some Gilda Radneresque "never mind," it will once again reinforce his metaphysical toolishness. The guy thinks he can be president and he thinks he's doing what the "fighting Dem" base wants him to do. The problem is he has basically radiated himself with the isotope Asinine-90 and the only way the rest of his party can protect itself from radition poisoning is to sequester the guy in some lime-pit for 10,000 years until his asininity half-life deterioates to managable levels.