It was a wacky weekend for the party of D, that allegedly stands for Democratic. Many votes were cast that won't count, and many other votes were counted that were not cast. We all should have seen this coming the moment they made Howard Dean the head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). To everybody I've ever spoken with about Howie (who always seems angry for no apparent reason) - Told you so.

In sunday's primary in Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama, capturing 68% of the vote to Obama's 32%. The win earned Hillary 38 delegates to Obama's 17.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, those 38 earned delegates in Puerto Rico were trumped by the DNC's awarding of 59 unearned Michigan delegates to Barack Obama on saturday. The party of D operatives were congratulating themselves for their Solomonic wisdom all over the news shows yesterday, but it must be noted for the record, NOBODY IN MICHIGAN VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA. Sooo, how do you get 59 elected delegates without receiving any votes ? Why, you belong to the party of D, that allegedly stands for Democratic, that's how. John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and the other party of D nominees should be po'ed, because they deserved those 59 delegates every bit as much as Barack Obama did. Some deserved them more.

In the face of heated criticism, the DNC Outlaws Bylaws Committee made other compromises on saturday as well. They seated Florida's delegates in addition to the imaginary Michigan election they held in their minds, and then they decided the 2.3 million Florida and Michigan votes would count as half votes. This move at least brought those states in line with the DNC's own internal rules, though not in line with any Constitutional principle, except maybe that old revoked one about slaves counting as 3/5's of a person. Keep trying Florida and Michigan. Who knows, maybe one day you'll be real citizens. At least the 3/5ths compromise had the nobler goal of ending slavery behind it. The party of D was on the wrong side of the slavery debate when it counted too. Btw, did you know that Barack Obama is the first black man to EVER become a Senator in the party of D, the oldest political party in the country ? Yes, it is so. The Republican party, founded in 1854 by Abe Lincoln, elected it's first black man to the Senate, Hiram Rhodes Revels, in 1870. Just an interesting historical tidbit.

During the DNC's debate over whether to count millions of votes on saturday, one heckler repeatedly asked what I'll call THE QUESTION OF THE YEAR, before he was escorted out of the building by security. The question was :

HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELVES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IF YOU DON'T COUNT THE VOTES ?

Indeed. How, exactly ?

Speaking of counting the vote and real citizens, let's return to Puerto Rico for a minute. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. They fight in our military. Nearly 70 have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Puerto Ricans can vote in U.S. elections if they live on the mainland, but they can't vote in U.S. elections if they live on the island. They can vote in the primaries, but not the general election. Puerto Ricans live in this bizarre American colonial netherworld. Without getting into whether Puerto Rico should become a state, remain a colony, or become independent, I recommend this: As long as Puerto Ricans are U.S. citiizens, they should receive the full right to vote. I've already had my fill of votes not counting in this election cycle. I remain astonished that all it takes to suppress millions of American votes is some shenanigans from a handful of misguided politicians. We have to be better than that. The party of D can take all their wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Bush/Gore election of 2000 and stick it where the sun don't shine. They have forfeited the right to complain about anything.

Seeing as how the Democratic party is no longer democratic, I propose America has a contest to rename the Democrats into something more appropriate. I suggest the "Oxymoron party", or maybe the "Revisionist party".
===
In other news, Barack Obama quit his church after 20 years, in the wake of more wacked out remarks by that deranged Catholic priest, Pfleger, who said Hillary had a sense of entitlement to the Democratic nomination because she was white. The TUCC congregation ate Pfleger's remarks up. They loved it. Obama has no doubt grown tired of defending every loony racist statement that emanates from TUCC (Trinity Unbelievably Crazy Church), but the question about Obama will not go away. The question is, why did Obama sit there and listen to that nonsense for 20 years ? And Barack, please don't continue to insult our intelligence by saying you never heard that type of language when you were there. You KNOW you did. We KNOW you did. TUCC is based upon Black Liberation Theology, which assumes white oppression. At one time you embraced that church, when it was politically convenient, and now you have removed yourself from it, because it's politically invconvenient. That sounds less like a leader, and more like an opportunist to me, but let's move on. I also want a real discussion of the issues instead of all this stuff about preachers, because it's on the issues that Barack Obama really gets scary.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws - 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age - 26th amendment to the United States Constiutition.

This is the United States Of America. Our citizens have the right to vote, to have their voices heard, to choose their representatives in government. That is the essence of our democratic Republic. Without that, our freedoms are not secured.

But now we have a candidate running for president, Barack Obama, who wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million Democratic primary voters in Florida and Michigan. It appears the Democratic National Committee (DNC) wants to help him do it. Ironically, Obama claims to be a former civil rights lawyer who represented many people in voting rights cases. Now, he's advocating against voting rights. Is this the 'Change We Can Believe In' that Obama promises us ??? I think not. This is the Change We Do Not Want. Even more ironcally, Obama is a black man. It took nearly 200 years from the founding of this country for African-Americans to throw off the chains of slavery, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, prejudice, and voter intimidation to secure their full right to vote. Now Obama and the DNC come along and toss 2.3 million votes out the window at their whim. Welcome to the Obama Banana Republic, fellow citizens. What the hell was all that civil rights marching for anyway, if our votes can be brushed aside so easily ?

Obama wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters for one reason - it benefits HIM. Forget about the U.S. Constitution. Forget about the civil rights movement. Forget ALL that. Obama wants to be president, and the liberal Democratic establishment wants it too, so we can't be bothered with trifling issues like voting, civil rights, and Constitutions. In a third glaring irony, it was the Democrats who lamented over every vote being counted and recounted endlessly in Florida during the Bush/Gore presidential election of 2000, when it was to their advantage to figure out a way for Al Gore to win. Now, they don't care a lick about 1.7 million Florida primary voters, because they want Barack Obama to win. That is hypocrisy on a breathtaking scale.

And it's unconstitutional, criminal behavior. Peter J. Wirs cites the case law in his excellent article, called Specter Demands Sanity Check On Obama's Hypocrisy:

Constitutional law is unequivocal. Every vote cast must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Deliberately refusing to count votes cast may, under certain fact scenarios, constitute a Federal crime, United States v. Classic, citing now Section 241 of the Federal Crimes Code. Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."

In the United States v. Classic decision, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone expressed the majority opinion by stating that the Constitution's protection of the right to vote cannot be effectively exercised without reaching to primary elections and/or political party nominating procedures. Even the dissenting opinion in Classic recognized a Congressional right to regulate primaries.

Democrats should not be allowed to rip up millions of ballots. If the DNC doesn't find remedies for both Florida and Michigan's disenfranchised voters, Congress and the people should demand one. The principle of one person, one vote vastly overrides any other consideration here.

Now listen to the unamerican, vote stealing "compromises" Barack Obama has come up with for Florida (every "compromise" results in Obama being the nominee, btw. Some surprise). This comes from the Huffington Post:

Barack Obama is now floating a compromise on the Florida situation, telling the St. Petersburg Times that one idea would be to cut the delegations' sizes in half — a step back from his previous stance of splitting the delegates 50-50 between himself and Clinton, but a far cry from the Hillary camp's insistence upon seating them in full.

Obama only offered the "cut the delegate size in half" compromise after he knew it could not hurt his chances to become the nominee. Prior to that, he stuck to the absurd "50-50 delegate split" compromise, thereby nullifying the Florida primary and pretending 1.7 million Florida voters didn't go to the polls that day.

There is a DNC meeting this saturday, where the DNC will allegedly decide whether they care about democracy a little bit, or not at all. Stay tuned for the results.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). That sounds worthwhile. We all want to reduce global poverty. This pleasant sounding bill is sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama (D-God), the "new kind of politician", The Man From Hope (no wait, that was Bubba Clinton, the sexual predator president), The Audacity Of Hopester, who transcends all who came before him. He's The Great And Powerful Oz-bama. Swoon at mere mention of his name, ye lowly mortals. Pay no attention to the man in the booth.

The Global Poverty Act would commit the US to paying 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations to meet the UN's 2000 Millenium Development goals. This amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends in foreign aid. The US gives more in aid than any other country on this planet to begin with.

If this sounds like a global tax to you, well, it does to me too, payable to one of the most corrupt organizations on earth, the United Nations (who, btw, recently had it's Human Rights Council start on a mission to find countries who are "abusing freedom of speech". I hope you heard that. The UN is looking for countries who are too free, and calling that a problem. That's what happens when the Human Rights Council is dominated by the Arab League. They start prosecuting freedom rather than human rights violators. Also, guess who the biggest human rights violator on earth is, according to the mega-corrupt UN ??? If you said "Israel", you win first prize). The UN is a complete joke, is increasingly anti-american, is anti-Israel, is becoming anti-human rights, and is anti-sanity…and Barack Obama and others want to give it a big old chunk of our money, since we have so much extra that we don't need. All you foks out there have tons of extra money laying around, don't you ? Of course you do. That's why we don't have any problems here in America. We are rich. Yahoo ! It's a non-stop party here in the USA. The streets are paved with gold.

If you ask me, we should be considering withdrawing from the UN, not surrendering our sovereignty to it through a global tax. I think the chances of the UN eradicating global poverty with our global tax dollars are slightly less than my chances of finding an armed nuclear device in my backyard this morning.

It just occurred to me that I might be, to quote Obama, "distracting us from the issues that americans truly care about" by bringing this stuff about Barack's global tax up. If so, I truly and deeply apologize, and if Obama does become president, I will report to a re-education camp immediately. Until that time, I will operate on the assumption that this is still a somewhat free country guided by a Constitution, where the notion of paying a global tax to an unfriendly group of corrupt nations not only wouldn't be considered a good idea, but would be considered treasonous. I guess that makes me old-school, out of touch with Barry O's "new kind of politics". I hope they have real orange juice at the re-education camp. It's so much better than that sugary orange drink or that Tang stuff, and I've never even tried Sunny D. Like I said, I'm old school. But I digress…

Wait a second…Could it be that the Global Poverty Act is intended to BRING poverty to the entire globe ? Now, THAT makes sense. I should have thought of that earlier. We redistribute the wealth away from the rich people (like you and I. "Rich" will be defined as "anyone with a roof over their head"), and we give it to the UN, who will then do something with it, resulting in Global Poverty. Got it. I wonder why Obama didn't explain it like that to begin with ?

The text of the Global Poverty Act purposely avoids ANY mention of the cost of the bill, instead making it sound more like a generic and compassionate commitment to reduce poverty, as follows:

"…[The legislation] requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

It's only when you get to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that you discover the 0.7% tax on US GNP. Nice trick, Mr. Obama. That trick got the House to pass the bill without discussion via a voice vote back in february 2008. It is set to come up for a Senate vote soon, and it seems nobody is raising much of an objection. It seems nobody is even mentioning it. So far, this is pure stealth legislation. I have yet to hear the issue raised in any newscast or in any debate. Tim Russert just spent an entire hour with Barack Obama on Meet The Press and didn't raise the issue. Making the US subservient to the United Nations seems like a major issue to me. I hope it is to others as well.

And incidentally (or not), the Global Poverty Act would also commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocol, which is part of the Millenium Development Goals. Funny how that works.

You can send a blast fax to president Bush and Republican congressional leaders to ask that they stop the Global Poverty Act here.

Thursday was supposed to be a day when the House Of Representatives worked on the updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has already passed the Senate. The existing bill, the Protect America Act, passed last august, expires at midnight on saturday, february 16th. Rather than working on anything so mundane as protecting americans from terrorists, the House Democrats decided instead to vote on contempt charges for White House officials Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for not appearing before Congress on the Democrats fishing expedition investigation into the White House firing of U.S. attorneys. Minority leader John Boehner led Republicans in a House walkout in protest. Boehner said:

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us…Let's just get up and leave."

Indeed.

A few words about the so-called investigation into those U.S. attorney firings, which has been going on for over a year now. Those attorneys SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. He appoints them and he can fire them, as presidents regularly do. For example, Bill Clinton fired 92 of the 93 U.S. attorneys, including some who were investigating BILL CLINTON. I can't tell you what a big investigation there was into that. Oh wait, yes I can tell you. There WASN'T any big investigation into that. But somehow, when Bush fires 9 U.S. attorneys, THAT is a big deal, and was done for some dark machiavellian political reasons. There isn't any evidence, but shoot, who needs evidence to conduct a witchhunt ? Not the Democrats. Since they took control of Congress in 2006, investigating all things Bush has been Job One.

Back on topic, Congress has had SIX MONTHS to pass a permanent terrorist surveillance bill, and both sides of the aisle claim to want to get it done (one side even means it). But here we are on the eve of the bill's expiration, and nothing has happened yet. I guess the high drama of watching baseball star Roger Clemens deny HGH and steroid usage is more important to the House than our national security. Maybe next week Cirque Du Soleil can testify before the House regarding highwire safety regulations, or Paris Hilton can testify about what it's like to be born filthy rich (apparently, "it's hot"). Enquiring minds want to know.

So, after twiddling their thumbs for all this time, and after attempting to kick the can down the road by passing a 21-day extension of the terrorist surveillance bill, which the Republicans shot down, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said this:

"The first step must be reconciliation of the two bills…If the president wants to work together on that — we have been trying mightily to get the administration to engage."

Let me translate that for you. Bush backs the version of the bill that the Senate has already passed. His position is crystal clear on this subject. Always has been. The sticking point here is NOT Bush, it's NOT the Senate - it's Pelosi and company. So naturally, Nancy has to make it SEEM as if it IS Bush, because partisanship is what matters most. I can't wait for president Barack Obama to come along and change all this nonsense. Yes we can ! Oh, brother.

What Pelosi's Pals want to do is strip telecom immunity from lawsuits out of the bill. In other words, if a telephone company cooperates with the government and provides phone records for international Al Qaeda suspects, the ACLU should be able to sue the pants off that telephone company, enriching lawyers, protecting the 4th amendment, and protecting Al Qaeda, er, I mean, the people. The White House insists it may need private sector cooperation with the government for future terrorist investigations. Someone over at the White House must be living in that place known as the REAL WORLD.

Congenital liar Harry Reid (D-NV) also tried to blame it all on Bush, by saying:

"Your [Bush's] opposition to an extension is inexplicable..Nonetheless, you have chosen to let the Protect America Act expire. You bear responsibility for any intelligence collection gap that may result."

Is that rich, or what ? The House has had all this time to pass the bill, at the last minute they decide to vote on something else, and Reid doesn't think the Democrats bear any responsibility for it. Good thing we don't count on old Harry the Senate Majority Leader for leadership or anything. Unbelievable.

Here's one final strange, self-contradictory comment from Pelosi:

"We are trying to pass a bill that protects the American people and protects the Constitution…We know the president has the authority to do everything he needs to do to protect the American people in the interim."

Mrs. Pelosi, I have a question. If the president has "the authority to do everything he needs to do to protect the american people" already, why would there be a need for you to "pass a bill that protects the american people" at all ? Hmmm ?

Someone's pants are on fire.

You can read an Assocated Press story about this pathetic fiasco here.

I've been reading some dangerous and subversive writings lately. I have to share some of it with you, because I think these radical views could upset our liberal democracy if they become mainstream. Get a load of this claptrap:

“[A] wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” —Thomas Jefferson

Obviously, this Thomas Jefferson guy is some kind of greedy right wing extremist who is only looking out for the rich. He must be a conservative talk radio host or something. Whoever he is, we definitely shouldn't listen to his crazy rantings. Nothing good can come from it (other than the United States Of America - premier superpower, economic powerhouse, and beacon of freedom for the entire world, that is).

If you think that's bad, listen to this next wingnut's anti-government rambling:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington

Holy Pelosi ! This guy is very unamerican, right Nancy ? The deranged loon sounds like the next Timothy McVeigh, or, even worse (shiver), Rush Limbaugh (oh, sorry, I meant 'that fat druggie Rush Limbaugh'. I didn't mean to be politically incorrect and omit the required pejorative adjectives) . This George Washington nut must not understand that it takes a village. Sounds like he wasn't educated in public schools either, the heretic. If Hillary wins, she should get his FBI file to the White House asap. We can't have that kind of Revolutionary language being bandied about. It might disturb the collective.

This next guy is one of those NRA gun nut types. I think he owns a brewery. He was probably drunk when he said this:

The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms - Samuel Adams

Now, I did a little digging, and I discovered all these fanatics are members of some cult known as The Founding Fathers (must be some right-wing militia group), very dangerous. Here's another one of them, who is obviously one of those supply sider sob's, a heartless person with no compassion for the poor:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer - Benjamin Franklin

This Founding Fathers group (they're probably associated with the KKK) also talks about freedom an awful lot, man. War too. They must be a bunch of fascist uber-nationalist gung-ho Christionista Marine types that go around talking about God and Country. What a bunch of squares. They should just smoke some weed and chill out, already. Check this out:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry

The radical right-wing Founding Father nazis also have published some manifestos that you definitely want to avoid reading if you wish to remain a member of our liberal democracy. Among these subversives tomes are The Federalist Papers, The Declaration Of Independence, and The US Constitution. I don't think you really need to read them, because they are all really old, and don't apply to us today. Of course, there is that old saying - Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it….

Courtesy of the Patriot Post.

Can I get an amen here ? Don't we also call the following person a "thief" ?:

“A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” —Frank Dane

Democrats finally admit that tax cuts work (welcome to the light, Dems):

“We’re so used to Democrats pushing tax hikes as the answer to all of America’s problems that we were taken aback to find the following words buried in Pelosi’s release on the stimulus deal: ‘Economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth.’ Gee, that sort of sounds familiar. It’s almost, though not quite, like what the much-reviled supply-side economists have been saying for, oh, 30 years or so. Pelosi, and other Democrats now suddenly touting tax cuts, may be on to something. We might demur on the notion that all tax cuts must be ‘broad’ to be effective. Evidence really lies more strongly with giving tax cuts to those who would start new businesses or expand old ones. But it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat admit the obvious—that tax cuts work. It’s no secret that high tax rates act as a deadweight on the economy by creating absolute losses from which no one gains. Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, estimates that a $1 tax hike costs the economy 76 cents in output. That explains why the economy jumps each time there’s a tax cut.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Lots of bipartisan guilt to go around here:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken

I find the following comment very "stimulating":

“Washington, D.C. is a place where delusions go to thrive. That explains why Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist.” —Steve Chapman

Constitution ? You mean that g-d piece of paper ?

“Every candidate who repeats the misleading nonsense that ‘47 million in America have no health care,’ ought to be challenged with hard truth. The number is grossly inflated by including millions who are here illegally and millions of others who have the means to pay for health care insurance but refuse to adjust their budget and lifestyle. And don’t expect any media type to question where in the Constitution Congress derives any authority to dispense health care.” —Janet LaRue

Same as it ever was:

“Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What’s their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives.” —Walter Williams

Economic dunce cap wearer:

“How do we stimulate the economy to prevent or shorten a recession? One way would be to repeal the Bush tax cuts two years early, in 2009.” —Len Burman, director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, writing in The New York Times

They sure ain't conservatives, honey:

“Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama are not raging liberals.” —former CNN anchor Catherine Crier

This one's for you, Reverend, and your delusion that Chris Matthews is somehow a Republican shil:

“He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman, and they’re cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great-looking, and they’re cool and they’re young, and they’re—everything seems to be great… [I]f you’re in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit. Moving.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Der-da-der-der-durp:

“I don’t pay much attention to polls.” —Hillary Clinton, who in the next breath claimed that polls also show her ahead in “most of the Super Tuesday states.”

If only he would heed his own advice:

“I think it’s time for [Bill Clinton] to just be quiet. I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.” —professional race hustler Al Sharpton

Be careful what you ask for:

“Everyone seems to be campaigning as the candidate of change, but what does that mean exactly? Wouldn’t a depression be a change? How about basing our economy on Communism instead of Capitalism?” —John Hawkins

Lib vs Lib (and really funny):

“It’s down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it’s getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. Edwards is still running, but at this point they don’t even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he’s going to take on the big corporations.” —Dave Barry

First, a little background.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978. It prescribed procedures for the collection of physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" on territory under United States control. Basically, this meant that the government had to go through the FISA court for a court order to monitor such communications.

Fast forward to September 11, 2001. We all know what happened on that day. Okay, MOST of us know what happened on that day. A few are still trying to figure it out, like the 9/11 Truthers, who can't even understand something they saw live with their own eyes. What can I say, there are slow learners in every class. Anyway, following 9/11 our president thought it would make sense to try to protect our country from further terrorist attacks, since it is precisely his job to keep our country safe. Good thinking, Mr. President. In the pursuit of this worthy goal, it appears on some occasions our president didn't require the National Security Agency (NSA) to go through the FISA courts to monitor international communications from suspected Al Qaeda members when one end of the communication was inside the USA and the other end was in a foreign country. Then, an unknown somebody inside our intelligence community leaked this tidbit to the New York Times, who plastered it all over the front page like the patriots they are, exposing what Bush calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) to all of america (and the terrorists too !). Though the exact details of the TSP are still classified, and though some members of Congress were briefed on the program, a firestorm ensued. Some people thought Bush was acting to protect the country against terrorists (good idea). Others thought he was (cue the left wing hyperbole machine) - a fascist, unitary executive, civil rights destroying, constitution shredding, super criminal running a totalitarian regime who was prying into the private lives of every american citizen at his whim and he should be impeached and thrown in prison ASAP. Not coincidentally, many of the people in this latter category are also 9/11 Truthers, if you get my drift. They think Bush brought down the World Trade Center towers too, apparently so he could justify his plan to spy on your aunt Martha, and also to invade every Middle Eastern country, so that oil would rise to it's highest price in history be stolen by america. They seem to think Bush is the Dr. Evil character in the Austin Powers movies, or that Bush is the puppet and Dick Cheney is the Dr. Evil character pulling his strings. I'm not kidding either. Just ask them. You'll be absolutely amazed at the abject stupidity of it all.

All this brings us to the year 2007, when the Protect America Act was first passed by the Democratic-led Congress, which granted the Administration a six-month extension of it's expanded FISA powers to fight terrorism. Apparently, most of the Democrats aren't really buying into the Dr. Evil theory, though they pretend they do when they talk to the mainstream media, just to keep up appearances. It's good to know the Democrats aren't really traitors, they just put on the airs for purposes of partisan gain.

It should be noted that the ACLU, who are evidently taking a little time off from their core mission of removing every reference to God from the universe (except the Muslim God, Allah, he is "protected free speech"), HATES the Protect America Act, which they have cleverly renamed the Police America Act. In case you are confused, policing america is a BAD thing to the ACLU. Go figure.

The reason I brought this issue up in the first place is because the Protect America Act is set to expire on February 1, 2008, and Congress is kicking around what to do about it. The Republicans just voted down a one month extension of the law offered by Harry Reid, because they want something more lasting. The Democrats want more information on the program so they can investigate more Republicans be more informed about the correct course of action, so Bush is releasing some classified NSA documents to Congress. Hopefully, the bipartisanship Congress displayed yesterday on the tax rebate diversion (here's a shiny new toy america ! Don't worry your pretty little head) will manifest itself once again on this surveillance issue. Communications have changed quite a bit from 1978. Back then, there weren't cell phones or the internet, for instance. Let's come up with a sensible plan that will enable us to monitor suspected terrorists without totally trashing the Constitution. It can be done. It isn't even that difficult. A key idea here is - foreign terrorist actors are NOT protected under the US Constitution. That's why spying on foreign agents and foreign lands has always been legal, without going through the courts. Terrorism is a new kind of enemy. We need new kinds of powers to effectively fight it.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’… I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character… And if America is to be a great nation this must become true.”

I assume most people in america know the above words by Martin Luther King. I hope they do. They should, because they were some of the most important words spoken by an american in the last half century. We could never be a truly great nation with the stain of racism on our national soul, a stain that mocked our own notion that "all men are created equal." Since MLK can say it far better than I, here are links to two of his most famous writings:

I Have A Dream

Letters From A Birmingham Jail

By breaking the bonds of segregation, Jim Crow, and institutional racism, the King-led civil rights movement freed this entire country. Racism is a mental disorder, brought about by fear and ignorance, which leads to hatred. MLK helped cleanse us of that disorder at the ultimate cost of his own life. When you look back a short 40-50 years to King's time, it is obvious that great progress has been made. Racism has not been completely eliminated, and perhaps it never can be, but by any objective measure, the changes that MLK helped bring about have led us to a far better place.

Martin Luther King's goal was to unite us all in brotherhood, not to split us up into opposing camps in some imaginary racial or class war, as some would have us do today. In King's words, "Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood."

He was a Baptist minister at heart, a hero who maybe reluctantly stepped up to accept the great challenge that was thrown upon him, but step up he did, with tremendous courage. I wonder how many of us could have risen to such a challenge, could have shouldered such a burden. He did, and that is what made him a great man. MLK was a progressive leader with conservative christian moral values. His cause transcended politics. In the Letters From A Birmingham Jail, MLK closed with "Yours In Peace And Brotherhood". That is his legacy, peace and brotherhood.

Let's always look with a suspicious eye on anyone who proposes anything other than that.

(Note - I've had very limited computer time for the last week, so I apologize for not posting much. It won't last much longer. Thanks).

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not" - sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson

From Holder at AOL, July 31, 2007 (this was too good for me not to reprint): link

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun ! control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

I have to admit to you all up front that I am not a big fan of guns. Never have been.

But I own one. It's a 9mm, just like in the photo. I'm even less a fan of being a victim. And I am a big fan of the Constitution, so I understand the importance of all that I just reprinted above. As a Libertarian, I am suspicious when agents of the government want to take things away from me, whether it be my money, my guns, or my other rights. Needless to say, that puts me at odds with Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc. They want to take those things away. They are the ones who want me to be a "subject" rather than a "citizen". Then they add insult to injury by pretending it's all for my own good, as if I'm an infant. Man, how I hate that.

It's true that guns kill, but that is not a valid argument to ban them. I just listed 25 reasons why that would be a bad idea. Here's another one. A 'gun free zone' is also a defenseless zone. When Matthew Murphy walked into Colorado's New Life Church a week ago armed with 1,000 rounds of ammunition and a couple AK-47's, the only thing that kept him from killing maybe hundreds of people was security guard Jeanne Assam, armed and able to shoot back. If that church was a 'gun free zone', it would quickly have turned into a 'dead zone'.

But I also read the part of the Second Amendment about 'a well regulated Militia'. Yesterday on Meet The Press, host Tim Russert spent an hour attempting to paint Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney as a flip-flopping cult member, while skimming over all Romney's myriad accomplishments in about the first 30 seconds of that hour (not that there's a liberal media or anything. Gosh no). During the course of that program, Romney came down in favor of background checks prior to gun purchases, and also said he would have signed the assault weapons ban. I think background checks falls within the 'well-regulated' sphere of the Second Amendment. I don't want escaped mental patients walking into the nearest gun store and walking out with semi-automatic weapons. I like freedom, but I'm not crazy (no pun intended). I also don't have a big problem with an assault weapons ban. If it ever comes down to the citizenry needing Thompson sub-machine guns for protection, we are already in pretty much of an all-out war. Perspective matters. We don't want people driving around in Abrams tanks either.

Criminals will always get guns. We have no way to stop them. Making guns illegal definitely won't stop them. Drugs are illegal. Is it hard to get them ? Nope. Same with guns. Making guns illegal will only stop law-abiding citizens from having them, which will put them at the mercy of criminals. Not very smart. Nothing wrong with trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns, but law-abiding citizens have a right to own them, which must not be infringed.

On tuesday, December 11th, 2007, The House of Representatives voted on House Resolution 847 (H.R. 847), which dealt with "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith". H.R. 847 was sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), and had 60 co-sponsors (58 Republicans and 2 Democrats).

My first reaction to this news was, why is Congress voting on a resolution about religion at all ? Congress doesn't need to recognize the importance of Christianity or Christmas. The 75% of americans who call themselves Christians can do that just fine all on their own. Congress just needs to stay out of religion's business altogether. That is what the Establishment Clause in the Constitution is all about. The Republicans should never have brought this issue to the floor of Congress. It isn't their business. Of course, the resolution passed overwhelmingly (372 - 9, with 10 voting merely 'Present'), because who is going to vote 'No' on a resolution saying that Christianity and Christmas are important ? Even if you aren't a Christian, I think it's pretty obvious that Christianity is iimportant in america. It's the leading american religion by far.

Except 17 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted either 'No' or merely 'Present' on H.R. 847. More on that later.

Now, let's go back in time a few months to September 2007, and House Resolution 635 (H.R. 635), which dealt with "Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and expressing respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion, and for other purposes". This one was sponsored by Rep. Eddie Johnson (D-TX), and co-sponsored by 29 Democrats and 1 Republican.

I have the exact same reaction to this resolution about Islam as I do to the resolution about Christianity. This isn't the business of Congress. This time, the Democrats are the ones who shouldn't have brought the resolution. This resolution also passed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 376-0, with 42 voting merely 'Present' (1 Democrat and 41 Republicans).

Here's the part you members of the left side of the political spectrum will not like that I'm mentioning:

17 Democrats voted either 'No' or 'Present' on the Christianity resolution, but voted 'Yes' on the Islam resolution. Those who voted 'No' on H.R. 847 and 'Yes' on H.R. 635 were Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Diana DeGette (D-Co.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Fortney Stark (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). Those who voted "present" on H.R. 847 and "yes" on H.R. 635 include: Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.).

What is the possible explanation for this ?

A defense of the Dems voting 'Yes' on the Islam resolution is that they wanted to show Muslims that we are not prejudiced against them. This does not explain the 'No' vote on Christianity, however. Does this show a bias within the Democratic party against Christianity ? I think it probably does, even if it's the minority opinion.

There were also 41 Republicans who voted merely 'Present' on the Islam resolution and voted 'Yes' on the Christianity resolution. The same thing could be said in reverse about them. Does this show a bias against Islam ? I think it probably does, even if it's the minority opinion, but it is radical Islam that is the enemy of america, so I think this is somewhat understandable, even though I disagree with it. We shouldn't condemn all of Islam due to the actions of the radicals (though they have an AWFUL LOT of radicals, I have to admit).

Any thoughts on this, folks ?