Republican or Democrat, American or Foreign, the politicos are fine subject for speculation, rumination and a bit of derision
Dubai Ports Deal-May It Rest In Peace
Although personally I think the congress critters could have held off for the 45 days they requested and engage in an enlightening dialogue on this issue.
I recall during the Carter era the turnover of the Panama Canal to the Chinese and during the Clinton era the Long Beach ports turnover to the Red Chinese was groused about. To those who lambaste that no one ever said a word about those deals, oh yes they did. Except during those time periods the Blogosphere, email and other methods of easy mass communication had not reached their nadir. Also, America was not actually at war with the Red Chinese.
Don’t say it because I know it. We are not at war with the UAE either but if the politicos can’t get a grip on the fact that a lot has changed in terms of Americans’ perspective on these sorts of things than they shouldn’t be politicians.
Perhaps with a little prodding from the White House, the UAE eventually withdrew from the deal.
Below is a snippet from the Wall Street Journal which delineates just such a terrorist incident involving ports that the American public was so concerned about.
Experts have long seen ports as a vulnerable target and worried that terrorists might one day use the world’s global shipping network to launch an attack. Their fears were deepened in March 2004, when two suicide bombers from the Gaza Strip stowed away in a false compartment of a shipping container bound for Israel. Israeli security officials believe that the bombers were targeting the port’s fuel depot when guards discovered them. The bombers detonated early, and 10 people died in the explosion, including the bombers. The attack on the Israeli Port of Ashoda didn’t prompt a security crackdown at ports around the world or in the U.S.
Line Item Veto-Why Do I Care?
One of the widely accepted tricks to get something passed quickly with little debate is to attach it as a provision to a budget package. An example would be to attach a proviso that drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be banned to a budget bill for emergency funds needed for the Iraq war. So obviously the funds are needed fairly quickly thus the attachment should sail through.
It’s a problem. As I understand it, there was a line item veto passed during the Clinton administration but it was over-ruled by the Supreme Court as giving the executive branch unconstitutional power over the legislative branch.
Well we can’t have this but I’d softly suggest that the current rather sneaky practice gives too much power to the legislative branch. In the ANWR example above, the congress critters can essentially pass a law that the executive branch cannot veto due to how it was pushed through.
As explained on Powerlineblog.com:
In its 1998 ruling striking down the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act “g[ave] the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.” The Legislative Line Item Veto Act does not raise those constitutional issues because the President’s rescission proposals must be enacted by both houses of Congress and signed into law.
Which doesn’t really explain much to me except that should the President strike out that ANWR provision, still working on my original example, then both houses of congress must then approve his changes or over-ride his veto.
No matter how I mucked up the explanation, something has to be done to stop the practice of sticking desired legislation onto budget packages. It’s blackmail, pure and simple. We’ll be watching developments on this current Bush-backed line item veto legislation.
Slobodan Milosevic Found Dead in Jail Cell
As the Wall Street Journal’s Online Opinionjournal.com describes the lovely Mr. Milosevic:
As Serbian leader after 1989, Milosevic unleashed the ethnic furies that sparked the bloodiest conflicts in Europe since World War II. Yugoslavia was the West’s great failure for most of the 1990s. “This is the hour of Europe,” proclaimed Luxembourg’s foreign minister, Jacques Poos, in 1991 when the Croats and Serbs came to blows. Yet not until after Srebrenica and its 7,000 dead men and boys in 1995 did the U.S. step in and lead an ineffective Europe to stop the fighting.
Of course the conspiracy theories abound as with any death of the celebrated. Let us assume Mr. Milosevic died of natural causes. Had his heart not stopped the man would likely have died of boredom what with his war crimes trial going on for almost a decade.
Can the United Nations do anything? For sure they can’t fight a war. For sure they do nothing to stop human rights abuses what with the UN’s own peacekeepers raping and pillaging. For sure, with Milosevic dead, they can’t even run a decent war crimes trial. All things the U.N. was formed to do.
Be glad the U.N. isn’t trying the sweet Saddam.
Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, Resigns
Popular scuttlebutt has it that Gale Norton was not especially liked by the Republican base. First, she was viewed as being too liberal.
Lately, with this Abramoff stuff coming to light, we discover that Ms. Norton was knee deep in the designation of Native American “sacred ground” that would allow such as casino money machines to be built upon.
I suspect Norton was asked to leave.
WASHINGTON – Interior Secretary Gale Norton was expected to announce Friday that she is resigning from President Bush’s Cabinet, ending a five-year run that included frequent clashes with environmentalists and American Indian tribes.
Norton, the first woman ever to serve in the job, was expected to make the announcement Friday afternoon, according to a source who requested anonymity.
From the start, Norton, a former Colorado attorney general, has been considered one of Bush’s most loyal foot soldiers, using the position overseeing vast tracts of federal land and tribal areas to increase energy exploration.
She faced fierce opposition from environmentalists, and in the early days of the Bush administration, it looked as if she would be one of the most divisive figures in the Cabinet.
President Bush has chosen Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to be the new Interior secretary.
How Long Must We Be Fooled by CAIR Before We Get a Clue?
The acronym stands for the “Council on American-Islam Relations”. The popular hype is that the organization is the Muslim equivalent of the NAACP.
Indeed CAIR officials are often invited to speak at official events involving Islam, and a CAIR official was part of the solemn ceremony memorializing the victims of 9-11 immediately after the attacks.
Which is all well and good and in fact, the existence of such an organization as watchdog of the rights of Muslim American citizens is the sort of thing we encourage here in the melting pot of the United States.
This does not mean that we should have to tolerate, in the name of diversity, an organization that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, a group that has members committed to the destruction of this country, a club that regularly raises money for terrorist organizations overseas and serves as a spy circle for their Mid-eastern thuggish leaders.
Yes, it’s a brutal description but at times we must open our eyeballs and see things for what they are. CAIR is no more an organization for “moderate Muslims” than the American Nazi organization is for conservatives.
CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment
by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), headquartered in Washington, is perhaps the best-known and most controversial Muslim organization in North America. CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims’ civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims. “We are similar to a Muslim NAACP,” says its communications director, Ibrahim Hooper. Its official mission-“to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding”-suggests nothing problematic.
Starting with a single office in 1994, CAIR now claims thirty-one affiliates, including a branch in Canada, with more steadily being added. In addition to its grand national headquarters in Washington, it has impressive offices in other cities; the New York office, for example, is housed in the 19-story Interchurch Center located on Manhattan’s Riverside Drive.
But there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism.” Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.” Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, notes that “CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.” The family of John P. O’Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having “been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism” responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”
It’s time to stop fooling ourselves and to stop giving these people legitimacy. They are not on our side.
Wow. This Is Big News
For what could be more important than one’s very time of day? So next year Daylight Saving Time beings in March? And ends in November?
Seems a good notion to harness as much daylight as possible but I also learn to keep watch under the political radar. This one crept up on me quicker than the UAE Ports deal.
Currently, in the United States, Daylight Saving Time begins at 2:00 a.m. local time on the first Sunday in April. On the last Sunday in October areas on Daylight Saving Time return to Standard Time at 2:00 a.m.
Daylight Saving Time Extended
On Monday August 8, 2005 President Bush signed into law a broad energy bill that will extend Daylight Saving Time by four weeks in 2007. The provisions of the bill call for Daylight Saving Time to begin three weeks earlier on the second Sunday in March and end one week later on the first Sunday in November. Currently Daylight Saving Time starts on the first Sunday in April and ends on the last Sunday in October.
In 2007 when the provisions take effect Daylight Saving Time will begin on March 11 and end on November 4, 2007.
Talk About Flying Under the Radar
I suppose Salon.com thought they had the scoop of the century. Seems a staffer to a Republican congress critter has been formally reprimanded by the military for his role in the abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. The reprimand was based on the testimony of the most infamous of the Abu Ghraib offenders, Charles Graner. Of course Brinson is denying everything in Graner’s testimony and has filed an official protest with the army against his reprimand.
What’s odd is how quiet the media has been about this. Abu Ghraib being one of their pet causes and all that. Read the whole article. Because if nothing else, it illustrates the army is following through with the investigation on this matter even without the media spotlight.
Mar. 10, 2006 | A senior staffer to a Republican congressman revealed Thursday that he has been formally reprimanded by the Army for his role in the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal — and that he is fighting the disciplinary move. He says that higher-ups were responsible for the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
U.S. Army Reserve Capt. Christopher R. Brinson, who in civilian life works as the deputy chief of staff for Alabama Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, was directly in charge of some of the military police later prosecuted for abuse at Abu Ghraib during the notorious autumn of 2003. Brinson received the reprimand in January 2005, but it had not been revealed publicly until his attorney, David P. Sheldon, confirmed it to Salon Thursday, noting that Brinson has since submitted a rebuttal to the Army. The attorney would not reveal the exact reason for Brinson’s punishment.
Tom Daschle for Prez?
It’s that time when those who dream for a shot at the top job on the planet tentatively make the soft suggestion. One such potential Democratic candidate testing those waters is Tom Daschle, former Senate majority leader, then Senate minority leader, then defeated in the most recent South Dakota election by the Republican challenger.
There’s a low-down and dirty story on Mr. Daschle. Which involves the mighty Native American reservations in South Dakota and the election shenanigans practiced there for too many years. The GOP put Daschle directly in their crosshairs and sent many wing-tipped Republican lawyers to Dakota land to monitor just why so many South Dakota Native Americans voted several times, even if they were dead! During this time there was plenty of media attention but it mostly fell under the radar. Almost every day yet another abuse of the “recruitment” of Native Americans for voter registration was revealed. With a little more honesty in the voting process restored, Daschle lost the next senatorial election as he likely should have a few times before.
Now he wants to be President? Daschle has as much chance of being elected President as I do being the next superstar model. As for his chances of being the Democratic nominee, his chances might be a bit better. Soon the Democrats will realize that Hillary is not going to fly in flyover country, then who knows who might be plucked from the crowd? My own Delaware Joe Biden is too looking at that top post. Biden has a way better chance to clinch that nomination than Daschle.
In my humble opinion, of course.
“I haven’t ruled anything out or anything in at this point,” Daschle said in an interview Saturday night after a hometown dinner in his honor.
“I’m encouraged by the strong support many people have voiced for my candidacy around the country and in South Dakota. I’ll make a decision at some point later on this year,” he said.
So if you are a college that takes federal money than you must allow the military to recruit on your campus. To not allow military recruiters on your campus is not a protection of your collegiate free speech rights. At least that’s the crux of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
Many college campi did not allow military recruiters on site in protest of the military’s treatment of homosexuals. Which would be the vaunted “don’t ask, don’t tell” methodology.
The other side of the coin is why on earth the federal government should keep supporting these same institutions with this position.
Consider the matter decided.
From Fox News.com:
Powered by Sidelines
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the government’s appeal after a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia ruled the law could not be enforced because it infringed on the constitutional free-speech rights of the universities.
The justices reversed that ruling….