The rush to war, according to the very name of the organizing body behind Saturday's protest march -- International ANSWER, or Act Now to Stop War and End Racism -- is about race.
Isn't it interesting how many of these groups have the same mailing address (39 W. 14 St., #206, NY, NY 10011)?
"The trouble I see with the peace movement of today was pointed out by the editorial. It's about 20 different causes and their hypocrisy is obvioius sometimes. There are some opposed to taking action for pure motives, and I respect that, unfortunately for them their self appointed spokes people aren't doing them any favors. "
If they are as irrelevant as everyone says, what difference does it make?
Iraq is as good as defeated. Because it is the will of the US.
Do a google search on the address and see what pops up. Try searching google for their phone number (212) 633-6646 (the third thing that they have in common). I didn't think anyone would believe me, so I am trying to give enough information to research for yourself.
Not speaking for Dan but I believe that it shows those groups are part or supported by the World Workers Party, a socialist group, I'm sure Dennis is on the mailing list. I see it for what it is and IMO it shows me that there are many other issues or goals than opposing Iraq, they use it as the issue d'jour to bring about socialistic change. It will be another issue next week to clamp onto so they can march out Ramsey Clark who is certifiable.
This group of groups is amazing! Look at the IAC's website(another with the same address and phone number) and you will see what I mean. They are against smallpox vacinations, they discuss Palestinian resistance to Isreali terror, they are on the side of Cuba, they call Mumia Abu-Jamal a political prisoner, Labor solidarity, etc. Here is an excerpt I found on their site:
December 17, 2002--The International Action Center demands the immediate release of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from detention in NATO’s maximum-security prison near The Hague in the Netherlands.
Milosevic was kidnapped and transported from his homeland to stand trial for alleged war crimes during NATO’s wars on the Balkans. He’s been representing himself since mid-February at The Hague, where the U.S.-funded pro-NATO International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia sits.
These guys are just plain nuts and are stirring up trouble to make the Workers World Party look good. Don't forget that this is the same party that was supporting the Chinese government's 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre.
I believe they are acting to disable and destruct society’s institutions in order to forward an agenda. Dissent is one thing, and is a Constitutional right, but we must not forget that there can be domestic enemies.
two days where we hit Iraq with more bombs than we spent during the entire Gulf Storm deal.
that's not "collateral damage"...that's intentionally targeting civilians. No way can you not kill a LOT of innocent people doing something like that. does the word "Blitzkreig" ring a bell?
no, no, no. I asked a question. I would like to know what the real differences are. From the rhetoric it appears the differences may be only in small degrees. Alternatively, the differences may only be in tactics.
"They are acting to disable and destruct society’s institutions in order to forward an agenda. Dissent is one thing, and is a Constitutional right, but we must not forget that there can be domestic enemies. "
Prove that, Dan.
Maybe the folks on the right and from the Bush adminstration are ready to make THE LIST.
That's the fun part of squashing politcal enemies, once you've gained enough power. Putting together THE LIST. In the hands of the right people they could get THE LIST all the way to Mark Dayton.
Seems Dennis Rahkonen could be the first name on Rob's LIST.
That's the fun part of squashing politcal enemies, once you've gained enough power. Putting together THE LIST. In the hands of the right people they could get THE LIST all the way to Mark Dayton.
Seems Dennis Rahkonen could be the first name on Rob's LIST.
You're getting more delirious by the day, perhaps some counseling is in order. I don't want anybody on a "list" nor do I want to squash them, I disagree with him vehemently I actually think Dennis is funny. And frankly I love the fact he takes the stands he does. It shows what the left is made of and it only helps.
you do understand that "we have planned" implies that it's not past tense, don't you?
Just so you know there's a million "plans" on the books, it's irresponsible not to have plans in place for many scenarios. It doesn't mean it will be used.
If you concur with Dan that it's gone beyond a few thousand naive college students and slackers on a lark to a group "acting to disable and destruct society’s institutions " that's a pretty tall claim. They're almost revolutionary. And I'm not the one who is weaving those tales.
I wouldn't concur nessicarily with all his assertions. Are they dangerous ? Hardly, most people I think are amused annoyed or both with them. The only reason I found it interesting is whom is pulling the strings behind the anti-war moevement. It's well organized by a socialist group. I wonder how people even within the protests would feel if they knew who was behind or organizing these staged protests. That and of course they have 30 different topics and they merely use the current cause to bring about their brand of change.
Do you see them as "domestic enemies?"
No, I see them mostly as misguided, especially the youth who are easily swayed. I'm not saying they are all insincere. There were some protestors who fit into that category who latched on to the cause perhaps not realizing whom was running the show. Many are the fringe types who trashed Seattle, I see that as domestic mayhem than I do enemies nessicarily. They are mostly just kooks.
And who's putting them up to it?
Nobody is forcing them to but I wonder if the homemaker from St.Paul who perhaps went realized what the organization putting it together stood for. We don't hear much on the news about who the people really are at the helm of their movement.
They annoy me, too, but at the same time I get annoyed when they're trashed and ridiculed. That shouldn't happen to people who just don't want to see the carnage of war.
During the Gulf War, I watched the news and stayed away from the commentary.
Just so you know there's a million "plans" on the books
I would hope that there is not a "million"
but this isn't just some sort of back-up plan, it's a change in our policy of what we will and will not do.
I certainly hope that we wouldn't carpet bomb entire cities, but we have stated that this is on the table, and while there are a "million" things we could "plan" for, there are not a million responses on the table. As civilized people whom are saying that no one should have weapons of mass detruction (indeed, the central goal is to not ever have such a tragic crime ever commited again), why are we now putting mass destruction on our table? Is it needed? Is it even sane? How can this be anything but a bad example to others? And aren't we supposed to be setting the example?
The "shock and awe" scenario is to use guided missiles that are many times more accurate and reliable than what we saw in the first gulf war. Use so many of them to destroy military objectives so precisely and quickly that the enemy will realize that there is no chance to win this battle. The hope is for the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight. They would bypass the Iraqi divisions as much as possible and aim for the leadership. The hope is that the divisions will see this show of might and throw down their arms to surrender saving countless lives.
That is not who I am talking about, I am talking about those in charge.
I'm sorry, carpet bombing with more bombs in two days as were dropped in the entire Gulf conflict isn't, by it's very nature, just taking about those in charge. At some point you have to consider the population as something more that collateral.
As I said there are plans and contingencies. It's irresponsible not too. I can tell you we do what we can to avoid civilian casualties. The munitions we are talking about are alot more accurate than they used to be. The money we've invested saves lives on both sides. You also should be aware that Iraq was and is famous for putting military hardware/targets/troops in civilian areas hoping to take advantage of our effort to avoid civilians. It doesn't mean accidents don't happen, it's messy, and it's never easy. It's also easy to criticize from the comfort of your living room.
As I said there are plans and contingencies. It's irresponsible not too. I can tell you we do what we can to avoid civilian casualties.
okay, then do we have a plan to destroy the entire planet as well?
Plans are one thing, policy is another.
It doesn't mean accidents don't happen
We aren't planning accidents, we are planning on two days of massive bombing.
You also should be aware that Iraq was and is famous for putting military hardware/targets/troops in civilian areas hoping to take advantage of our effort to avoid civilians
a nasty little side effect of attacking people who aren't attacking you.
Nevemind Crabs, I don't see the point in debating it with you. You're obviously firm in your belief as I am in mine. It's too hard to explain the reasons and the scenarios and we wouldn't end up finding any common ground I don't think anyway.
You don't understand. Of course war crimes happen. There's also should be a realization that wars aren't neat and clean things, it doesn't mean you have free liscence to intentionally kill innocent people. You do what you can to avoid it.
I'll give you a quick scenario.
You're in a war. You've been getting shot at for days, you've seen your friends die and get wounded. You've seen bodies of soilders, people and animals that look surreal, they look fake in many ways until you realize they aren't.
You haven't slept for days, your adreniline of someone trying to kill you keeps you going. You come up to a village and approach it cautiously. The town looks deserted but intact. You are making your way through the town suddenly you come under heavy fire from a rowhouse. Two people next to you are hit, the guy 2 down from you gets hit, you realize quickly that there's also fire coming from behind you, what do you do ? Qucik think, hurry, someone else just went down. You can't retreart, hurry, what do you do ? 10 more minutes of this and it's possible you'll all be dead. What do you do ?
You call in an airstike, artillery or use a heavy weapon if you have it. After it's over and you police the area and do assesment you find the dead enemy soilders along with the people who lived there whos house was broken into by the soilders to use as a trap or as cover.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee actually complained that Republicans, who control the panel for the first time since the summer of 2001, are moving too fast on President Bush's judicial nominees.
During hearings for appeals court nominees John G. Roberts, Jeffrey S. Sutton and Deborah L. Cook last week, Democrats said the GOP was running roughshod over the minority. Theres a tremendous rush to judgment here, whined Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Cut it out! Roberts, Sutton and Cook have been awaiting committee review since May -- of 2001.
Democrats have promised to filibuster judges they consider too conservative.
Republicans should call their bluff. Never in the history of judicial confirmations has an appeals court nominee been blocked by parliamentary delay.
If thats the strategy, however, the GOP should make Democrats conduct a real filibuster -- nonstop speech- making that blocks Senate action. Republicans shouldnt allow them the convenience of the modern version, where a filibuster is simply announced and the Senate moves on to other business.
No, if they want to tie up a nomination via filibuster, we want to see Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle and others on the Senate floor 24 hours a day, where the American people will be able to see first-hand the foolishness of their obstructionism.
The American Bar Association Says Estrada Is “Well Qualified.” The American Bar Association (ABA) has given Miguel Estrada a unanimous “Well Qualified” rating, the highest possible rating. The ABA bases its ratings on “integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.” Democrats have called the ABA rating the “gold standard.”
"As he seeks to get his ambitious agenda through Congress, President Bush is going to learn that his chief legislative opponent isn't Tom Daschle or Nancy Pelosi," Kate O'Beirne writes in National Review.
"The legislative roadblock that threatens to derail his initiatives and nominations is Senate Rule XXII, the provision allowing a senator to mount a filibuster, thereby blocking a vote, unless a supermajority of 60 senators invokes cloture to end the protest. In recent Congresses, the mere threat of mounting a filibuster has been sufficient to prevent a simple majority of senators from acting. The opening volley in the liberal assault on the GOP agenda is the threatened filibuster of judicial nominees," the writer said.
"Democrats have disruptive designs on much of the Bush agenda, but since the announced offensive against fully qualified judicial nominees is unprecedented, so too should be the response of the Senate's new majority. A threatened filibuster alone should not allow 41 senators to block the confirmation of federal judges. Rather than surrender pre-emptively to the need for 60 votes to confirm a judge, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should call the Democrats' bluff, and bring back the traditional filibuster. Let Kate Michelman, leader of the abortion lobby, man the cots and wipe the brows of weary Democrats forced to talk 'round the clock.'
In response to Democrats' threats to filibuster Miguel Estrada's confirmation, Sen. Orrin Hatch has vowed to make them put up or shut up. Hatch, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently told GOP colleagues that, as far as he is concerned, 'If they want to talk about him for two weeks, they can talk about him for two weeks.' If Bill Frist shares Hatch's welcome resolve, it would be a sharp departure from the Senate's present practice, which allows a single senator to disrupt legislation simply by asserting his intent to mount a filibuster." - Inside Pilitics Washington Times
"And I think that, that goes not just to the constitutional obligations of the Senate that should be followed," she said. "But it goes to whether or not we're going to have some kind of secret judiciary where people are elevated to our highest courts without ever having to answer questions from elected representatives."
Estrada answered questions from the Judiciary Committee, during his Sept. 26, 2002, hearing and in response to hundreds of standard questions asked of all nominees in writing and additional written interrogatories from Democrats on the committee.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Schumer criticized Estrada for answering I will follow the law when asked to predict how he would rule on cases involving controversial topics such as abortion and states rights under the Tenth Amendment.
Hmmm, Let's see if I got this straight, an appointed judge might just reflect the views of the administration that appoints him/her? NO! say it aint so.
A first grade teacher explains to her class that she is an American. She asks her students to raise their hands if they were American too. Not really knowing why but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands explode into the air like flashy fireworks.
There is, however, one exception. A girl named Kristen has not gone along with the crowd.
The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different.
"Because I am not an American."
"Then", asks the teacher, "What are you?"
"I'm a proud Canadian," boasts the little girl.
The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Kristen why she is a Canadian.
"Well, my mom and dad are Canadians, so I'm a Canadian too."
The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason," she says loudly. "What if your mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you be then?"
A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Kristen, "I'd be an American."
HONOLULU -- The remains of American servicemen who were missing in Laos for more than three decades are returning home this week and will be honored by their brothers-in-arms.
Former POWs from the same conflict, who are gathered to celebrate their first steps on American soil 30 years ago this week, will pause Friday to honor the remains as they touch down on U.S. soil -- as well as thousands still missing in action...
The rush to war, according to the very name of the organizing body behind Saturday's protest march -- International ANSWER, or Act Now to Stop War and End Racism -- is about race.
Isn't it interesting how many of these groups have the same mailing address (39 W. 14 St., #206, NY, NY 10011)?
Define "interesting" in this case, Dan.
Could it be they are just effective and organized activists?
"The trouble I see with the peace movement of today was pointed out by the editorial. It's about 20 different causes and their hypocrisy is obvioius sometimes. There are some opposed to taking action for pure motives, and I respect that, unfortunately for them their self appointed spokes people aren't doing them any favors. "
If they are as irrelevant as everyone says, what difference does it make?
Iraq is as good as defeated. Because it is the will of the US.
Could it be they are just effective and organized activists?
They all have two things in common, the address and the Workers World Party.
What? -- Not the Democrats?
Can't be. Gotta be the Democrats. Terry McCauliffe, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy. No address in the Hart Office Building in Washington?
If not, someone is going to hear about this!
Funny, Rick.
Do a google search on the address and see what pops up. Try searching google for their phone number (212) 633-6646 (the third thing that they have in common). I didn't think anyone would believe me, so I am trying to give enough information to research for yourself.
I believe you. I'm just not sure of your point.
Rick,
Not speaking for Dan but I believe that it shows those groups are part or supported by the World Workers Party, a socialist group, I'm sure Dennis is on the mailing list. I see it for what it is and IMO it shows me that there are many other issues or goals than opposing Iraq, they use it as the issue d'jour to bring about socialistic change. It will be another issue next week to clamp onto so they can march out Ramsey Clark who is certifiable.
BINGO!
This group of groups is amazing! Look at the IAC's website(another with the same address and phone number) and you will see what I mean. They are against smallpox vacinations, they discuss Palestinian resistance to Isreali terror, they are on the side of Cuba, they call Mumia Abu-Jamal a political prisoner, Labor solidarity, etc. Here is an excerpt I found on their site:
Free Slobodan Milosevic!
These guys are just plain nuts and are stirring up trouble to make the Workers World Party look good. Don't forget that this is the same party that was supporting the Chinese government's 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre.
I believe they are acting to disable and destruct society’s institutions in order to forward an agenda. Dissent is one thing, and is a Constitutional right, but we must not forget that there can be domestic enemies.
this "A-Day" thing we have planned looks like a war crime in the making.
do you know what "A-Day" is about?
two days where we hit Iraq with more bombs than we spent during the entire Gulf Storm deal.
that's not "collateral damage"...that's intentionally targeting civilians. No way can you not kill a LOT of innocent people doing something like that. does the word "Blitzkreig" ring a bell?
you do understand that "we have planned" implies that it's not past tense, don't you?
Workers World Party or Democrats, whats the dif??
to you, apparently nothing
you need to invest in some new brushes
no, no, no. I asked a question. I would like to know what the real differences are. From the rhetoric it appears the differences may be only in small degrees. Alternatively, the differences may only be in tactics.
"They are acting to disable and destruct society’s institutions in order to forward an agenda. Dissent is one thing, and is a Constitutional right, but we must not forget that there can be domestic enemies. "
Prove that, Dan.
Maybe the folks on the right and from the Bush adminstration are ready to make THE LIST.
That's the fun part of squashing politcal enemies, once you've gained enough power. Putting together THE LIST. In the hands of the right people they could get THE LIST all the way to Mark Dayton.
Seems Dennis Rahkonen could be the first name on Rob's LIST.
liberal hysteria
Rick,
You're getting more delirious by the day, perhaps some counseling is in order. I don't want anybody on a "list" nor do I want to squash them, I disagree with him vehemently I actually think Dennis is funny. And frankly I love the fact he takes the stands he does. It shows what the left is made of and it only helps.
Crabs,
"Which days were they?"
Just so you know there's a million "plans" on the books, it's irresponsible not to have plans in place for many scenarios. It doesn't mean it will be used.
Well, Rob:
If you concur with Dan that it's gone beyond a few thousand naive college students and slackers on a lark to a group "acting to disable and destruct society’s institutions " that's a pretty tall claim. They're almost revolutionary. And I'm not the one who is weaving those tales.
Do you see them as "domestic enemies?"
And who's putting them up to it?
Rick,
I wouldn't concur nessicarily with all his assertions. Are they dangerous ? Hardly, most people I think are amused annoyed or both with them. The only reason I found it interesting is whom is pulling the strings behind the anti-war moevement. It's well organized by a socialist group. I wonder how people even within the protests would feel if they knew who was behind or organizing these staged protests. That and of course they have 30 different topics and they merely use the current cause to bring about their brand of change.
No, I see them mostly as misguided, especially the youth who are easily swayed. I'm not saying they are all insincere. There were some protestors who fit into that category who latched on to the cause perhaps not realizing whom was running the show. Many are the fringe types who trashed Seattle, I see that as domestic mayhem than I do enemies nessicarily. They are mostly just kooks.
Nobody is forcing them to but I wonder if the homemaker from St.Paul who perhaps went realized what the organization putting it together stood for. We don't hear much on the news about who the people really are at the helm of their movement.
They annoy me, too, but at the same time I get annoyed when they're trashed and ridiculed. That shouldn't happen to people who just don't want to see the carnage of war.
During the Gulf War, I watched the news and stayed away from the commentary.
That shouldn't happen to people who just don't want to see the carnage of war.
But that isn't "just" what they want.
I would hope that there is not a "million"
but this isn't just some sort of back-up plan, it's a change in our policy of what we will and will not do.
I certainly hope that we wouldn't carpet bomb entire cities, but we have stated that this is on the table, and while there are a "million" things we could "plan" for, there are not a million responses on the table. As civilized people whom are saying that no one should have weapons of mass detruction (indeed, the central goal is to not ever have such a tragic crime ever commited again), why are we now putting mass destruction on our table? Is it needed? Is it even sane? How can this be anything but a bad example to others? And aren't we supposed to be setting the example?
The "shock and awe" scenario is to use guided missiles that are many times more accurate and reliable than what we saw in the first gulf war. Use so many of them to destroy military objectives so precisely and quickly that the enemy will realize that there is no chance to win this battle. The hope is for the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight. They would bypass the Iraqi divisions as much as possible and aim for the leadership. The hope is that the divisions will see this show of might and throw down their arms to surrender saving countless lives.
That shouldn't happen to people who just don't want to see the carnage of war.
That is not who I am talking about, I am talking about those in charge.
I'm sorry, carpet bombing with more bombs in two days as were dropped in the entire Gulf conflict isn't, by it's very nature, just taking about those in charge. At some point you have to consider the population as something more that collateral.
"At some point you have to consider the population as something more that collateral."
Let's hope they can find someplace to hunker down and hope for the best.
Dan was talking to me about something else with that response. He doesn't trust the motives of the leadership in the US anti-war movement.
He doesn't trust the motives of the leadership in the US anti-war movement.
There is good reason not to.
Crabs,
As I said there are plans and contingencies. It's irresponsible not too. I can tell you we do what we can to avoid civilian casualties. The munitions we are talking about are alot more accurate than they used to be. The money we've invested saves lives on both sides. You also should be aware that Iraq was and is famous for putting military hardware/targets/troops in civilian areas hoping to take advantage of our effort to avoid civilians. It doesn't mean accidents don't happen, it's messy, and it's never easy. It's also easy to criticize from the comfort of your living room.
okay, then do we have a plan to destroy the entire planet as well?
Plans are one thing, policy is another.
We aren't planning accidents, we are planning on two days of massive bombing.
a nasty little side effect of attacking people who aren't attacking you.
We are talking about human lives here. Why on earth does it matter where one is when they talk about it?
It's not like Iraq is attacking me, sure, that's sorta the point.
Nevemind Crabs, I don't see the point in debating it with you. You're obviously firm in your belief as I am in mine. It's too hard to explain the reasons and the scenarios and we wouldn't end up finding any common ground I don't think anyway.
So, you don't think there is such a thing as a war crime (or is it that it's just not a crime if we consider it)?
I think I understand.
No,
You don't understand. Of course war crimes happen. There's also should be a realization that wars aren't neat and clean things, it doesn't mean you have free liscence to intentionally kill innocent people. You do what you can to avoid it.
I'll give you a quick scenario.
You're in a war. You've been getting shot at for days, you've seen your friends die and get wounded. You've seen bodies of soilders, people and animals that look surreal, they look fake in many ways until you realize they aren't.
You haven't slept for days, your adreniline of someone trying to kill you keeps you going. You come up to a village and approach it cautiously. The town looks deserted but intact. You are making your way through the town suddenly you come under heavy fire from a rowhouse. Two people next to you are hit, the guy 2 down from you gets hit, you realize quickly that there's also fire coming from behind you, what do you do ? Qucik think, hurry, someone else just went down. You can't retreart, hurry, what do you do ? 10 more minutes of this and it's possible you'll all be dead. What do you do ?
What do you do?
You do what you have to do to survive.
Bingo.
You call in an airstike, artillery or use a heavy weapon if you have it. After it's over and you police the area and do assesment you find the dead enemy soilders along with the people who lived there whos house was broken into by the soilders to use as a trap or as cover.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee actually complained that Republicans, who control the panel for the first time since the summer of 2001, are moving too fast on President Bush's judicial nominees.
During hearings for appeals court nominees John G. Roberts, Jeffrey S. Sutton and Deborah L. Cook last week, Democrats said the GOP was running roughshod over the minority. Theres a tremendous rush to judgment here, whined Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Cut it out! Roberts, Sutton and Cook have been awaiting committee review since May -- of 2001.
Democrats have promised to filibuster judges they consider too conservative.
Republicans should call their bluff. Never in the history of judicial confirmations has an appeals court nominee been blocked by parliamentary delay.
If thats the strategy, however, the GOP should make Democrats conduct a real filibuster -- nonstop speech- making that blocks Senate action. Republicans shouldnt allow them the convenience of the modern version, where a filibuster is simply announced and the Senate moves on to other business.
No, if they want to tie up a nomination via filibuster, we want to see Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle and others on the Senate floor 24 hours a day, where the American people will be able to see first-hand the foolishness of their obstructionism.
Editorial
Democrats learned everything they know about obstruction from Bob Dole.
The old guy had the time of his life blocking Democrat initiatives.
Yeah like that organization is a moderate organization. fold, you are as far to the left as I am to the right. Mr. Estrada was doing his job. Here read something that isn't extremely left wing: http://www.judicialselection.com/nominees/estrada.htmor http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/757770/posts
The American Bar Association Says Estrada Is “Well Qualified.” The American Bar Association (ABA) has given Miguel Estrada a unanimous “Well Qualified” rating, the highest possible rating. The ABA bases its ratings on “integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.” Democrats have called the ABA rating the “gold standard.”
"As he seeks to get his ambitious agenda through Congress, President Bush is going to learn that his chief legislative opponent isn't Tom Daschle or Nancy Pelosi," Kate O'Beirne writes in National Review.
"The legislative roadblock that threatens to derail his initiatives and nominations is Senate Rule XXII, the provision allowing a senator to mount a filibuster, thereby blocking a vote, unless a supermajority of 60 senators invokes cloture to end the protest. In recent Congresses, the mere threat of mounting a filibuster has been sufficient to prevent a simple majority of senators from acting. The opening volley in the liberal assault on the GOP agenda is the threatened filibuster of judicial nominees," the writer said.
"Democrats have disruptive designs on much of the Bush agenda, but since the announced offensive against fully qualified judicial nominees is unprecedented, so too should be the response of the Senate's new majority. A threatened filibuster alone should not allow 41 senators to block the confirmation of federal judges. Rather than surrender pre-emptively to the need for 60 votes to confirm a judge, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should call the Democrats' bluff, and bring back the traditional filibuster. Let Kate Michelman, leader of the abortion lobby, man the cots and wipe the brows of weary Democrats forced to talk 'round the clock.'
In response to Democrats' threats to filibuster Miguel Estrada's confirmation, Sen. Orrin Hatch has vowed to make them put up or shut up. Hatch, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently told GOP colleagues that, as far as he is concerned, 'If they want to talk about him for two weeks, they can talk about him for two weeks.' If Bill Frist shares Hatch's welcome resolve, it would be a sharp departure from the Senate's present practice, which allows a single senator to disrupt legislation simply by asserting his intent to mount a filibuster." - Inside Pilitics Washington Times
"And I think that, that goes not just to the constitutional obligations of the Senate that should be followed," she said. "But it goes to whether or not we're going to have some kind of secret judiciary where people are elevated to our highest courts without ever having to answer questions from elected representatives."
Estrada answered questions from the Judiciary Committee, during his Sept. 26, 2002, hearing and in response to hundreds of standard questions asked of all nominees in writing and additional written interrogatories from Democrats on the committee.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Schumer criticized Estrada for answering I will follow the law when asked to predict how he would rule on cases involving controversial topics such as abortion and states rights under the Tenth Amendment.
Hillary Claims Republicans Want 'Secret Judiciary'
Oh I get it! It's another vast right wing conspiracy!
:::ROLLS EYES:::
Hmmm, Let's see if I got this straight, an appointed judge might just reflect the views of the administration that appoints him/her? NO! say it aint so.
A Canadian Friend of mine sends me this joke:
A first grade teacher explains to her class that she is an American.
She asks her students to raise their hands if they were American too.
Not really knowing why but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands
explode into the air like flashy fireworks.
There is, however, one exception. A girl named Kristen has not gone along
with the crowd.
The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different.
"Because I am not an American."
"Then", asks the teacher, "What are you?"
"I'm a proud Canadian," boasts the little girl.
The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks
Kristen why she is a Canadian.
"Well, my mom and dad are Canadians, so I'm a Canadian too."
The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason," she says loudly. "What if your
mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you be then?"
A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Kristen, "I'd be an American."
Is this thing on ? Hello, (tap, tap, tap)
Well Rick, since the Americans have been getting such a beating by France and Germany that I watched Old Yeller' as a show of support. So there.
I wrote back saying I'm an American of the conflicted and guilt-ridden variety. We're not all confident and sure of ourselves like George W. Bush.
It was a tactic. When faced with a humerous put-down, put yourself down even more.
You one-up them and they then lose their ammunition.
I've heard that joke, except with Republican in place of Canadian and Democrat in place of American.
Did someone post it here recently?
and i've heard it with canadian replaced with packer fan and american replaced with vikings fan.
MIA Remains to Be Met by Vietnam POWs
By DAVID BRISCOE
Associated Press Writer
February 12, 2003, 11:09 PM EST
HONOLULU -- The remains of American servicemen who were missing in Laos for more than three decades are returning home this week and will be honored by their brothers-in-arms.
Former POWs from the same conflict, who are gathered to celebrate their first steps on American soil 30 years ago this week, will pause Friday to honor the remains as they touch down on U.S. soil -- as well as thousands still missing in action...
May these heroes finally rest in peace.