"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." Benjamin Franklin
Congressmen who visit the U.S.-Mexico border unannounced are being monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, and at least one U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent has been suspended for speaking to a congressman without first getting supervisory clearance, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.How telling is this? What is it going to take before weak, no, corrupt, lying, deceitful politicians own up to the fact that they have no intention of securing our borders? And when are Americans going to wake up to the fact that if we don't have secure borders, we don't have a secure country?
Congressional representatives interviewed by the Daily Bulletin said they were unaware until recently that Border Patrol agents were required to file Significant Incident Reports -- normally used for shootings and other serious border incidents --when congressional representatives made unannounced visits this summer along the U.S.-Mexico border.
A second document obtained by the paper reveals that one agent was suspended for 10 days without pay for speaking with Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who made an unannounced visit to the border in May.
'Preventing Congress from speaking freely to federal employees violates at least two federal statutes, and agents are fearful of telling the truth,' said King, who recounted several visits to the Mexican border when Border Patrol agents would not speak with him for fear of reprisal.
'Filing these reports is a form of intimidation. If anyone is going to be punished, then they should be punished for not speaking to a member of Congress, rather than for telling the truth.'
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who also has made unannounced visits to the border, said he is concerned congressional oversight of border matters has suffered as a result of the Homeland Security monitoring. Poe echoed King's assertion that forcing agents to file reports is a form of intimidation, and said Congress is prepared to call for hearings and issue subpoenas to investigate the matter.
'Members of Congress should not be under surveillance by Homeland Security because we ask the tough questions (of) border agents, and border agents should not be intimidated into having to report our visits and conversations with them like we are criminals," Poe said. "Members of Congress are not the enemy because we want to find out the truth at the border.'
Hat tip to Lucianne.com for this priceless editorial cartoon. You just can't revise a legacy that's already been written. Do we really want to put these people back in the Whitehouse?
From a sensible point of view, it doesn’t matter whether an idea emanates from the left or right side of the political spectrum. What does matter is: Is it a good idea? Did it work? What kind of results did it produce? Was it cost effective? Did it solve a problem, or make it worse? Ideas do have consequences, and we need to keep track of them.
Let’s get another thing straight: It doesn’t matter what any politician says. Politician’s words are as cheap as human life in Iraq. Politicians will promise you the moon with chocolate coating on it if you’ll give them your vote. Once in power, they have a way of becoming entrenched, and forgetting all about what they said to get elected. If a politician doesn’t do what he said he’d do, he should be thrown out of office. Problem is, by the time he or she is up for reelection, nobody remembers his or her campaign promises. Politicians count on that.
Politicians have a way of fogging up the atmosphere with a combination of hot air and methane. They are not there to solve problems – they are there to promise to solve problems. Not long ago, I heard a well-known Democrat say, “After all, in politics its perception that counts.” Politicians work hard at creating the perception that they’re good for the country, even when they’re not. They seek as much “face time” on television as possible. As a given politician reaches reelection time, review his promises, check his track record, and decide, on that basis, whether he’s worth putting back in office. Simple, right? Problem is, almost nobody does it.
People often vote for people they know nothing about. They may like the candidate’s face, or his name, or his ethnicity. Sometimes it’s just a matter of being better known than his competitors. We vote for familiar names. None of these are valid reasons for voting for someone.
The kind of people we put in office, or remove from office in November, will go a long way to determining the future course of this country, and of our states. Much is at stake. Those of us who are privileged to vote ought to take our vote seriously. We need to do our homework. Keep tabs on your politician’s track records. What did they vote for, what did they vote against? Forget what they have said; it means nothing.
Charles Peters put it this way: “In Washington bureaucrats confer, the president proclaims, and Congress legislates, but the effect on reality is negligible if evident at all. The nation’s problems don’t disappear, and all the activity that is supposedly dedicated to their solution turns out to be make-believe” (How Washington Really Works by Charles Peters, p. 3).
Vote for politicians who have made a concrete, positive effect on reality. Return to office those candidates who did what they said they’d do the first time they were elected. Make elected office a meritocracy, not a cash cow for career politicians.
Don’t allow the ideologically-driven Press and Media influence your voting decision. Ferret out the verifiable facts, and only the facts. Forget contrived perceptions; focus on reality.
Ask hard questions like: who will make the country safer for its citizens, and who will not? Who will seal the borders, and who will just talk about sealing the borders without actually doing it? Who will fight to win against terrorism, and who will merely do a lot of politically correct posturing? Who will get rid of the odious, immoral death tax (estate tax) and who will vote to keep it? Who will get out-of-control spending under control, and who will not?
Who will put justices on Supreme Court who take the Constitution seriously, and who will nominate those who see it as a “living document” subject to creative interpretation based on international considerations?
Which politicians have the guts to take on organized crime, drugs, vice, identity theft, elder abuse, serious prison reform, federal sentencing guidelines and other crucial issues?
Who will best respond to the threats of natural disasters and terrorism? We the people must demand results, not a superfluity of hot air. I know some of these problems seem intractable. Yet all have solutions if politicians have the political will to seek and implement them. What would you do if you had to face the nightmarish issues of Social Security and Medicare payments in the face of an aging population? Demographic trends alone are enough to give any politician a mental hernia.
What kind of man, or woman (?), do you think could best take on the world’s monsters and barbarians? Who could face down an Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or a Kim Jong Il?
Who is willing to lead the drive to eliminate America’s dependence upon foreign oil?
This is a time in American history when we need giants in Washington, not hard-drinking, red-faced, leftist windbags who offer no answers -- only vicious attacks on our President. We need people of courage, vision and wisdom. The very existence of this grand and glorious nation hangs in the balance. Your vote in November and in two years from now means more than ever. Use it wisely.
- Brian Knowles
WASHINGTON – In another example of the way the three nations of North America are being drawn into a federation, or "merger," students from 10 universities in the U.S., Mexico and Canada are participating annually in a simulated "model Parliament."
Under the sponsorship of the Canadian based North American Forum on Integration, students met in the Mexican Senate for five days in May in an event dubbed "Triumvirate," with organizers declaring "A North American Parliament is born."
A similar event took place in the Canadian Senate in 2005.
The intentions of organizers are clear.
"The creation of a North American parliament, such as the one being simulated by these young people, should be considered," explained Raymond Chretien, the president of the Triumvirate and the former Canadian ambassador to both Mexico and the U.S.
Participants discuss draft bills on trade corridors, immigration, provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and produce a daily newspaper called "The TrilatHerald."
Un-fricking-believable that there are those in large numbers who regard this child's play as "torture!" Remember the "horrors" of Abu Graibe? They're still losing sleep over that!Details emerged yesterday about the seven interrogation techniques the CIA is seeking to be allowed to apply to terror suspects. Newsweek magazine reported that a New York lawyer, Scott Horton, who has acted as an adviser to the US senate on interrogation methods, had acquired a list of the techniques. The details were corroborated by information obtained by the charity Human Rights Watch.
The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called 'the attention grab' where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized; the 'attention slap' or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the 'belly slap'; and sound and light manipulation.
Big Brother is not only watching you - now he's barking orders too. Britain's first 'talking' CCTV cameras have arrived, publicly berating bad behavior and shaming offenders into acting more responsibly.How quaint! I'm sure these loudspeakers will be quite effective when irate radicals hit the streets protesting 14th century emperors.
The system allows control room operators who spot any anti-social acts - from dropping litter to late-night brawls - to send out a verbal warning: 'We are watching you'.
Middlesbrough has fitted loudspeakers on seven of its 158 cameras in an experiment already being hailed as a success. Jack Bonner, who manages the system, said: 'It is one hell of a deterrent. It's one thing to know that there are CCTV cameras about, but it's quite another when they loudly point out what you have just done wrong.
Sister Leonella, 65, was shot in the back four times by pistol-wielding attackers as she left the Austrian-run S.O.S. hospital at lunch time after finishing nursing school for trainee medics. Her bodyguard was also slain.
There was no claim of responsibility for the attack, which came just hours after a leading Somali cleric condemned the pope's remarks last week on Islam and violence.
The head of security for the Islamic militia that controls much of southern Somalia, Yusuf Mohamed Siad, said one man had been arrested and the second was being hunted. He said the killing might have stemmed from the uproar over the pope but stressed he didn't know for sure.
"They could be people annoyed by the pope's speech, which angered all Muslims in the world, or they could have been having something to do with S.O.S.," he said. "We will have to clarify this through our investigation."
The pope made his remarks on Islam during a speech Tuesday in Germany in which he quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.What can even be said about this whole situation without stating the obvious. Ok, I'll state it...the reaction to the quote by the radical Islamists exemplifies its veracity!
"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said.
"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,'" he quoted the emperor as saying.
Benedict made it clear he was quoting someone else's words and did not specify whether he agreed with them, but called them "brusque." The Vatican said Thursday night that the pope did not intend to offend Muslim sensibilities.
On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. The National Archives and Records Administration celebrates this important day in our nation's history by presenting the following activities, lesson plans, and information. We encourage teachers and students at all levels to learn more about our Constitution and government.What better way to celebrate than to review the our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights.
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five states--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut--ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.I wonder how many schools reminded their students about the significance of Constitution Day. Maybe there will be "Constitution Day" sales today at all the malls. Ya reckon?
On September 25, 1789, the first Congress of the United States adopted 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution--the Bill of Rights--and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments were ratified in 1791. In November 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government threatened to sever commercial relations with the state. On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world.
As for Clinton, he didn't bother watching the movie that angered so many people who once worked for him. [as if it didn't bother him!]The number of people who believe anything "these people" say is a rapidly shrinking group. The so-called Clinton legacy is and always has been a complete sham. This was just one docu-drama that revealed the little man behind the curtain.
"He made the choice that most Americans made," said Clinton Foundation spokesman Jay Carson. "Of a fictionalized drama version of Sept. 11 or the Manning brothers playing football against one another, he chose the latter."
It's sad, but predictable, that some on the far left have dismissed this film as a "right-wing" snow job. The first line of attack on the film came from loyal Clinton Democrats who are simply incapable of accepting any blame, or even a dollop of criticism, over the mistakes leading up to 9/11. (There are reports that the film was being re-edited days before its premiere.)Be sure to read the whole piece!
The Center for American Progress, led by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, has been marching on several fronts, at both Media Matters for America and at the blog, Think Progress.org, which set up a campaign called "Tell ABC to Tell the Truth About 9/11" and claims the film is guilty of "whitewashing" the Bush administration's failures.
These folks either haven't watched the film, in which case they ought to remain silent, or have seen it, in which case they are being disingenuous.
Both Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than Team Bush before Sept. 11. Indeed, the film drives home the point that from our enemies' perspective, it's irrelevant who is in the White House. (One scene has Muslims shooting machine guns at a video image of Bill Clinton.) They simply want to kill Americans and destroy America.
The film doesn't play favorites, and the Bush administration takes its lumps as well. Condoleezza Rice, for one, takes a hit. Among other things, she is presented as foolishly demoting National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to a smaller role devoted to cyber-security. The famous Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing, which warned of an impending domestic attack from Osama bin Laden, is presented as spelling out the approaching cataclysm in black and white, and to no avail.
Five years on, half America has retreated to the laziest old tropes, filtering the new struggle through the most drearily cobwebbed prisms: All dramatic national events are JFK-type conspiracies, all wars are Vietnam quagmires. Meanwhile, Ramzi Yousef's successors make their ambitions as plain as he did: They want to acquire nuclear technology in order to kill even more of us. And, given that free societies tend naturally toward a Katrina mentality of doing nothing until it happens, one morning we will wake up to another day like the "day that changed everything." Sept. 11 was less "a failure of imagination" than an ability to see that America's enemies were hiding in plain sight.Be sure to read the whole piece. He never disappoints.
From Peggy Noonan in her most recent poignant column titled I just called to say I love you:"Something terrible had happened. Life was reduced to its essentials. Time was short. People said what counted, what mattered. It has been noted that there is no record of anyone calling to say, "I never liked you," or, "You hurt my feelings." No one negotiated past grievances or said, "Vote for Smith."Please be sure to read the whole piece and yes, it'll bring a tear to your eye.
1. Work! It's Labor Day! What's not to get about that? It's a great day to work and show the Labor Unions you have utter contempt for their unproductive day off.You can creatively come up with your own ways to celebrate Labor Day by protesting Big Union who contrived this silly holiday in the first place, but as for me and my household, we are working and shopping at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club and other places of business who honor the spirit of capitalism by working on this day!
2. Shop at Wal-Mart! Yes, this would be the perfect Labor Day activity to protest Big Union! Afterall, who hates Wal-Mart more than Big Union and Sen. Joe Biden who is basing his presidential run on hating Wal-Mart (I know, it doesn't make sense because the vast majority of Wal-Mart customers are dems).
Liberals will sleep with anybody. No, this isn’t just another off-color reference to our esteemed former President Clinton. Instead, I’m referring to political alliances. More specifically, I’m talking about those on the left who would trade in common sense for political opportunism, even at their own peril. In their determined effort to decry the Bush administration and take the offensive against all things conservative, they have ignored the advertised threat to their own lifestyle and safety.It's just amazing that a once great and dominant political party could have sped so abruptly to the extreme left. The leftist components were there all along, but now they control the current incarnation of the democrat party and as such will probably self-destruct.
How? Well, they work against the administration’s efforts against terrorism; they disavow the benefits of a strong American military presence in the Middle East during a time of war and overt hostilities toward the U.S. and our allies; they publicize and, thereby, thwart defensive investigative techniques employed by the U.S. government to uncover threats to national security. And whom do these actions benefit? The U.S. public? Our allies? Well, besides themselves, these actions can only benefit Muslim extremists with the stated goal to destroy western values and civilization. Well done, lefties. Well done.
If pictures speak a thousand words, then this collage speaks volumes. Through pictures alone it illustrates the mindset of extremists bent on destroying all those who do not subscribe to their brand of religious fanaticism. The futility of the newly reborn 70’s-era activism is clearly demonstrated when you juxtapose the useful idiot, otherwise known as Cindy Sheehan, against the backdrop of mentally- and culturally-stunted Muslim extremists. One group is fueled by naïveté, self-loathing, and partisanship; the other by blind hatred, intolerance, and violence.
Unfortunately for the former, achieving peace by holding hands and singing Kumbaya has been historically unattainable. This is especially true in situations where diplomacy breaks down. With modern civilized nations having legitimate governments, diplomacy can be an effective tool for managing international relations. When dealing with terror regimes whose collective mindset is stalled in 7th-century thinking, however, hopes of diplomatically achieving peace are pure fantasy.
Ironically, the naïve, peace-loving leftists—champions of anti-hate speech legislation in the U.S.—give a hall pass to the most prolific and vitriolic purveyors of hate today (both in speech and action): Muslim extremists. Why is that? The answer is unfathomable, yet at the same time remarkably simple.
In the liberal “mind,” conservatives are the greatest villains known to man; an even greater threat than are Muslim terrorists. Amazingly, liberals marginalize the threat of terrorism and terror regimes, even when such regimes are publicly preaching hate and spreading contempt for western values to the world media.
