We have been bombarded today with the news about Mark Felt who finally admitted to being “Deep Throat” from the Watergate scandal which surrounded the Nixon administration. We have for years been told of the great Woodward and Bernstein, who snooped out the story about the cover-up by the Nixon administration, only to find that they were hand fed their information by a shadow figure trying to bring down President Nixon because he only was appointed to the number two spot at the FBI.

We have read, and been told today how much 0f a hero Mark Felt was, but when you look at what he did in the light of day, there was a much darker, more sinister side to his “leak” to the Washington Post duo. The story made their careers, along with Ben Bradlee, and they have made fortunes from the many books written, while Mark Felt (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

If you have not yet done so, please visit the Online Coalition right now to read and endorse their comment concerning FEC regulation of internet blogging.

The window to submit a comment to the FEC closes on Friday, June 3rd, 2005 — it’s not too late to submit your own comment. Simply send an e-mail to internet@fec.gov and be sure to include your name and mailing address. If you do not feel comfortable providing the FEC with personal data, send your comment to info@onlinecoalition.com and they will submit it for you anonymously.

Once the public comment period closes, the FEC will deliberate for a few weeks and then hold a public hearing on either June 28th or June 29th in Washington, DC. Both Mike Krempasky (a Republican) and Michael Bassik (a Democrat) from Online Coalition have requested the opportunity to testify at those hearings.

After the public hearings, the FEC will deliberate for a few weeks until they produce a final version of the rules and vote to enact them. Out of the six-member bipartisan Commission, they need four votes to do anything.

Don’t forget to visit the Online Coalition today to read and endorse their comment.

The sound of Harry Carey’s voice is ringing in our ears, “it might be, it could be, it is!” as he used to say when calling for the St. Louis Cardinals in the 60’s.

As we read this article from Daly Thoughts, entitled, Shock Poll: Byrd, Capito race too close to call, we could only echo Harry in thinking, it might be, it could be, oh we hope so!

It seems the poll in West Virginia is almost too good to be true. It shows Senator Byrd in an almost dead heat with a possible Republican candidate who has not even declared that she is running.

This is an excerpt of the report, which itself contains some links to polls:

“Hat tip Sean at My Election Analysis. The Charleston Daily Mail reports,

A new poll shows Sen. Robert Byrd and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito would run neck and neck in a possible campaign for the Senate seat now held by Byrd.

An RMS Strategies Poll released today reports that 46 percent of 401 registered voters in West Virginia would vote for Byrd if the election were held now.

A total of 43 percent picked Capito, R-W.Va., though she has not announced her intention to run.”

If true, this completely substantiates the view that those who cling to filibustering judicial nominees are extremely vulnerable in the next election cycle. Senator Byrd would finally get that retirement he so richly deserves.

We can almost hear Harry singing, “Take me out to the ball game, Take me out to the park”.

The final ramification of the “right of privacy” issue we’ll discuss for now, is the issue of homosexual marriage.

In Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick of 1986, and basically imposed their own political will in striking down the Texas law forbidding homosexual sodomy. In doing so, they used Justice Stevens’s original dissent written for Bower v. Hardwick when he wrote,

“The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.”

In so doing, the court basically thumbed their noses at every state law and the elected representatives of those states, who had written laws prohibiting sodomy.

Justice Antonin Scalia countered their argument in writing,

“This effectively decrees majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, [no law against fornication, bigamy, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

“Be sober, be vigilant;” (KJV 1 Peter 5:8 ) The Apostle Peter admonishes us to always be aware of what is going on in the world around us. In the text, following the words above, he tells us why we should be sober and vigilant. We won’t go into the entire passage today, only to say that there is a very good reason for being wary and alert. It is sometimes extremely difficult to know if what you are reading and hearing is truth or not. We have written about it extensively here.

In the next few years, there will be monumental decisions made by our governemt, elected representatives, and voters; it would behoove us to follow the advice of the Apostle above. We have a couple of examples to present today which might give us cause to reflect on what we see and hear over (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Our thanks to Michelle Malkin for highlighting an article from the Wall Street Journal Online. The article entitled, The Great Ground Zero Heist, gives a rundown on the new owners of Ground Zero. The following are the new owners, and the organization they belong to:

“The driving force behind the IFC is Tom Bernstein, the dynamic co-founder of the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex who made a fortune financing Hollywood movies. But his capital ventures appear to have funded his true calling, the pro bono work he has done his entire adult life — as an activist lawyer in the human rights movement. He has been a proud member of Human Rights First since it was founded — as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights — 27 years ago, and has served as its president for the last 12.

The public has a (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Our thanks to Confirm Them, for pointing to a a Hardball Transcript, in their post entitled, June 6 Hardball. Senator Byrd’s comments on Hardball are as follows:

“Well, it means exactly what it says. The president shall have the power to appoint, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint certain officers of the United States, including judges to the Supreme Court.

Now, what you have here is an attempt to pack the courts. FDR tried that in 1937. He failed, because the Senate filibustered and the people became informed as to what was going on. Here we are. We’re talking about federal judges, people who are appointed for a lifetime, for a lifetime, on the federal bench. And the president shall appoint by and with the advice and consent.

Well, there has been a lot of talk about (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

With all that has happened this week in the judicial nominee confirmations, we should not be too jubilant over the fact that Senate Democrats finally fulfilled their constitutional duty in giving a few nominees an up or down vote.

The Senate Democrats and their MSM allies have found themselves in a losing position on this issue, and they changed their rhetoric yesterday to one of blaming the Senate Republicans, and the Bush administration for the lack of time spent on legislative issues in the senate. It is they who have caused a lack of attention, if there is one, to legislative issues by their obstructionism on judicial nominees.

We should also remember that the “deal” by the gang of fourteen is only temporary. Senate Democrats will use the filibuster again, and the decision to do so will come shortly. They have endured a lot of criticism from their extreme liberal (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Perpetuated prejudices, is the issue for today.

We won’t go into the facts and history of how the Supreme Court of The United States, manufactured a law that promotes racism. For those wanting to read all the particulars, you will have to buy and read Men In Black by Mark R. Levin. You can purchase the book by clicking the link on your left.

We would only mention the cases involved and their dates which have brought judicialized racism into our legal system. We realize that judicialized is not really a word, but it aptly describes what the SCOTUS has done. The first such case was the 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The second and third cases were respectively, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Gratz v. Bollinger, both decided in 2003. The latter two cases involved the University of Michigan Law School and undergraduate (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

There has been a lot said in the Main Stream Media (MSM for short) in recent weeks about a Theocracy. Many on the left fear the evangelical right so much, they feel the need to sound an alarm, even if not nescessary. The end result for them is to sound like the guy who cried wolf one too many times. No one pays attention anymore.

There should be some clarification on this subject, and since it is Sunday, perhaps this might be an appropriate time to do so.

In order to have a Theocracy, you would need to have God, or a god directly in charge of the government, commanding every single facet of society from the seat of power. Such is not the case here in the US. There are some who would like to see a government here with laws which mirror Old Testament laws, but their numbers (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In a Washington Times article written by, Charles Hurt today entitled, Senate Democrats develop new filibuster strategy in which he describes the new strategy by Senate Democrats to filibuster Presidential nominees.

It seems that a direct filibuster is proving to be costly to Democrats which is the reason for the new tactic. This new strategy is an attempt to keep the nominees in the Judiciary Committee forever, and if passed out of there, to stall on the floor by the “non-filibuster”, (request documents forever while refusing to grant cloture) filibuster. According to Mr. Hurt’s article, qualifications are no longer important, but ideology is the most important factor to some. Here is a quote from the article:

“Mr. Schumer was asked whether Democrats would filibuster Judge Boyle if Republicans don’t produce additional unpublished opinions.
“We’ll have to see what happens,” he said. “First, we want to see if there’s a good-faith effort to get them. It is hard to get unpublished opinions.
“Second, when we get them, if there’s no smoking gun it’s not going to matter,” Mr. Schumer said. “If we think there really is a smoking gun — that we need more time to go forward — so be it.”

Mr. Hurt’s article is worth reading.

So the deal by the gang of fourteen may have all been for nothing after all. If a nominee does make it to the floor, we can only hope for Majority Leader Frist to trigger the nuclear option, and end this unconstitutional nonsense once and for all.

Our thanks to Real Clear Politics for pointing to an editorial by John Avlon of the New York Sun. The article entitled, Independent President In 2008?, promotes an analysis for a possible Independent Candidate’s ability to win in 2008. In the article, Mr. Avlon has a lot of statistics, and some possible scenarios, but he doesn’t have a winning proposition.

As we reflect on third party candidates in recent years, the first one who comes to mind is Ross Perot in 1992. One could argue that his run for the White House effectively gave the election to President Clinton. You can find a study on the demographics with a county by county breakdown here. The next important third party candidate was in 2000, where Ralph Nader had a huge impact on the Presidential election, this time affecting the Democrat candidate Al Gore. (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The Wall Street Opinion Journal has an excellent editorial today entitled, The U.N.’s Tipping Point, The real reformer is John Bolton, not Kofi Annan.. The writer makes an excellent point about the timing of Bolton’s confirmation by writing the following:

“Today–maybe, possibly, fingers crossed, and if Jupiter is in the Seventh House–the Senate will vote for cloture in the debate over John Bolton’s nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, meaning he will at last get the up-or-down vote he has been denied for months. And barring further surprises–no ruling those out, either–Mr. Bolton will be confirmed, meaning he may finally get down to the serious work that confronts the United States at the U.N, particularly in the matter of organizational reform.

For those who are genuine friends of the U.N.’s better ambitions–and we count ourselves among them–the pity is this didn’t happen a (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The remarks given by Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat IL) on the Senate Floor late on Tuesday, are so reprehensible and beyond rebuke, in our opinion, it would be in order to take higher action against such outrageous behavior.

Hugh Hewitt comes close to the proper action in his article entitled, A Tale of Two Senators. His suggestion is the following:

” You can call the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 and add your voice to the thousands who have demanded this obtuse pol apologize. But a better action would be to contribute to Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy, the Republican front-runner to replace another Democratic nutter, Mark Dayton, in the U.S. Senate. Kennedy’s campaign can be contributed to via his campaign website. Then e-mail your electronic receipt to every Democratic Senator you can find, telling them that a party with such a historically illiterate, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As expected there is not a single editorial from a major newspaper or network in the liberal Main Stream Media condemning Senator Durbin’s despicable comments, nor of his refusal to apologize. Not a single word of rebuke from any Democrat Senator, or any Democrat party leader, nothing!

There are some articles written by great journalists from secondary tier newpapers, and from the blogoshpere.

John Podhoretz of the New York Post, (the new paper of record) writes in an editorial called, OVER THE LINE, the following:

” No, no, no. Not this time. Dick Durbin has slandered the American military. He has slandered his country. He has defiled truth and he has spat on reason. He has given aid and comfort to all those who seek to use America’s tough stance in the War on Terror as a recruiting tool for anti-Americanism.

He is the Senate’s (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The separation of rights and privileges is the issue before us today.

The United States Constitution, states very plainly and unequivocally in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the following:

“The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

The Supreme Court has usurped this unequivocal right and responsibility of the legislative branch of our government, and placed it upon themselves. They have once again become the legislators by using their rulings to enact policy and write the laws of the land.

The cases to prove this point are, Graham v. Richardson in 1971, Sugarman v. Dougall in 1973, In Re Griffiths in 1973, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong in 1976, Nyquist v. Mauclet in 1977, and finally, Plyler v. Doe in 1982.

In the above cases, the Supreme Court has granted illegal immigrants (illegal (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

A pattern is beginning to emerge from the Democrats and their MSM supporters. The pattern is the same, only repeated with slight differences by those who are picking up the chorus. They want the terrorist detainee camp in Guantanamo closed down.

First it was Newsweek with their inaccurate story on the The Qur’an Question written by Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff. Then last week we heard Senator Durbin’s outrageous remarks on the Senate floor, which you can listen to the audio clip by clicking here, courtesy of Radio Blogger.

Today we have former President Bill Clinton weighing in with his remarks in the Financial Times. Of course we all remember how adept the former President was in his use of our military. Can anyone remember bombing an aspirin factory? There were always more important “things” on his “mind” than (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, has issued an action alert concerning a possible attempt to sneak in a last minute amendment during the sub-committee on Commerce, Science, and Justice meeting today, and again to the full committee on Thursday, to re-animate the MPAA’s broadcast flag and burn it into law.

What does the broadcast flag do?

“The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts. It gives Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over how members of the American public use our televisions. It forces American innovators to beg the FCC for permission before adding new features to TV. “

There are less than 48 hours left to see that the amendment is opposed. You can join in with the EFF, and take action by clicking here.

Or you may contact your Senator directly using the information below.

SUB-COMMITTEE AND FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ALABAMA (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

For those interested, Red State Rant is sponsoring a Dixie Blog Festival in Atlanta, the weekend of July 9th, 2005. The details are here, and this is what it says:

The DIXIE BLOGFEST is still on for the weekend of July 9th! Spread the word - a bunch of us will be getting together in Atlanta, and we want to make this as big as possible! Lance has been working on finding hotel accomodations for those of us traveling there. Please leave a comment here or email Lance, or contact me (Beth) at my blog.

We wish them well, and wish we could join them, but other obligations prohibit us from attending.

The The Tennessean Online, has an article which appeared on Sunday, 06/19/05, entitled, Up close, these are the nastiest of prisoners. This is a story about a Tennessee Army National Guardsman named John Krenson who returned after serving in Afghanistan. As a Major and Intelligence Specialist, he often came into contact with the kind of people being held prisoner at Gittmo. The following is in his own words:

“I worked with people who had worked at Gitmo earlier, I worked with people who worked at the primary detention facility in AFG, and I visited that facility many times. I saw detainees (many times on their prayer rugs, other times reading, other times talking when they were not allowed to). I saw the interrogation rooms. I worked with the soldiers and the leaders who ran this place.

I know those operations fairly well, and I got to (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

You gotta love it when someone has the audacity to actually tell the truth where they can be heard and quoted for the whole world to see. Such is the audacity of Karl Rove. In a speech delivered yesterday afternoon in Manhattan to a crowd of hundreds, this is what he said according to the New York Times, this morning in an article by Patrick D. Healy, Rove Criticizes Liberals on 9/11.

“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Democrats have been gearing up for the judicial nomination wars since they lost the Senate to the Republicans. The Judiciary is their last vestage of power, and they are holding on with a death grip. What we have seen to this point with filibusters, maneuverings, calling for documents, then more documents, are all attempts to obstruct any nomination made by the President. This is all a smoke screen for their attempt to impose their minority power beyond it’s scope, and get only their approved nominees on the floor for a vote.

A Supreme Court nominee seems immanent and thus the latest proposal by Senate Democrats for a consultation. Bench Memos, has a post by Bradford Berenson entitled, A Tactic for War, not a Proposal for Peace. Here is in part what he says about this Democrat proposal:

” First, let’s be clear about what the Senators (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Last week in our discussion on the separation of rights and privileges as pertaining to the differences between U.S. citizens and illegal aliens, we stated:

“At some point in the future the Supreme Court will rule that those terrorists are protected by the same laws and standings which are supposedly reserved for citizens of the United States…”.

After further reading in Mark R. Levin’s incomparable book, Men In Black, we have discovered that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of the “enemy combatants” and their legal status. This discovery has taken us a little by surprise, because we make a concerted effort to keep up with current events, especially concerning judicial activism, but somehow we missed this one.

So the proposition then comes to mind, if we missed this one, perhaps the majority of the public missed it as well.

We will give (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We have been reading, listening, and watching as the controversy concerning Ed Klein’s new book, The Truth About Hillary, and have been quite puzzled.

We have heard his book ripped by the left and the right. We should say at the outset, that we have not read the book, and are not necessarily promoting the book, but want to offer some of what others have had to say about it.

The following links are from some of most trusted writers in both old and new media, and they are divided in their reviews.

Captain Ed, said in, Ed Klein Goes Too Far, the following:

“Someone needs to ask Ed Klein why he felt it necessary to include this accusation as part of his biography. It’s hardly germane to her politics, or to her life in politics. It’s the kind of tawdry Weekly World News (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

High School Seniors out there who have political aspirations need look no further than Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia. Our thanks to Red State for pointing to this rising star of education. In his article entitled, The Future of a Conservative Political Movement, Mark Kilmer wrote:

“The future of conservatism is being fashioned, in part, at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia — a non-denominational Christian college… Its purpose is to educate the next generation of Christian politicians, and the connections and internships for the undergrads are great.”

Hanna Rosin has written for the The New Yorker an article which goes into great detail about Patrick Henry College. Her article entitled, God And Country; A college that trains young Christians to be politicians. states the following:

“Muench, like eighty-five per cent of the students at Patrick (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)