Jonah Goldberg put this up on Friday.

Read the article, but it's the debate that takes place in the comments section that is truly revealing.  There's a lot there.  Read it all (I'll admit I'm not even halfway through).

RWR

Townhall AGAIN has censorship issues.

Come read the post at

BlogSpot

or

WordPress.


RWR

www.rightwingrocker.com

 Yeah yeah. Not news, but I suppose I'll blog about it anyway, since I've been kind of quiet lately...

Censorship sucks.  Townhall really should reconsider this idiotic position.

Please go here to read the post.

RWR

(for more great posts and commentary, stop by http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com.)

A judge has ruled the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional.

While I have been (and continue to be) a fence-sitter on this issue for some time, concerned both for the First and Fourth Amendment implications of this program, I have ruled this decision a clear-cut case of judicial activism.

I've read the opinion, and after doing so, I'm still unsure of the constitutionality of the program. I'm no closer to an opinion than I was before. The judge has clarified NOTHING.

First of all, I have an issue with granting blanket constitutional rights to non-Americans, especially those who openly depise America and call themselves our enemies. These people have made their intentions very clear: Convert to their ultra-wacko brand of Islamic religion and espouse their Islamofascist backwards way of life or die. All free people in the world are their targets, and they have vowed martyrdom in achieving their goals.

The very Constitution that protects Americans and our rights to life, liberty, and property is under assault by these people, and they have now succeeded in using it to their advantage by extending constitutional protection to those who seek to destroy the very same Constitution.

Regardless of the constitutionality of the program itself, it is very clear what the ACLU and its minions are up to here - protecting the terrorists.

Of course, the judge was anything but impartial.

It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never "condense[d] ... into a single branch of government." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). We must always be mindful that "[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 703 (1997). "It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers . . . . When structure fails, liberty is always in peril." Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 468 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Cite the "parameters" if you care to have Americans agree with you. The whole purpose of this case was to determine just that - whether any rights were disregarded. While these things are addressed in the rest of the opinion to some degree, this is the most vital place to mention them, given their proximity to such strong words as "blatantly disregard", a phrase I have myself used here to describe judicial, legislative, and executive actions that were unconstitutional.

I also take issue with Judge Taylor's statement about checks and balances. Clearly, it's been liberal activist courts that have "condensed" all the power int their favor over the past hundred years. Why else would there have been such a clamor over judges like Roberts and Alito, who had established in one way or another that the Constitution would be their guide? Who will "police with care" the courts?

Here's more proof of bias ...

The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.

This judge should have recused herself from the case due to known personal bias. There is no way a judge making a statement like this in an official court document will rule with impartiality.

The Defendant's argument here (and Judge Taylor knows this) is that the Constitution and the laws of the Congress provide provisions for intgelligence gathering with regard to known enemies like al-Qaeda. Here's the actual text of the Constitution that is being used to defend the program:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States ... (Article II, Section 2)

Does this grant the President broad intelligence-gathering privileges? Judge Taylor does not address this directly, as any reasonable American should expect, but does make a roundabout reference to a 1952 case regarding a president's order to sieze steel mills, the so-called relevant text being this ...

In the Youngstown case the same "inherent powers" argument was raised and the Court noted that the President had been created Commander in Chief See generally Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)of only the military, and not of all the people, even in time of war.

Of course, she does not address the fact that intelligence-gathering is a military operation, and that the wiretaps involved known or suspected enemies of the United States. She does not address to what extent the First and Fourth Amendments apply to foreigners, particularly sworn enemies of the US; and she does not make any statements regarding to what extent these rights should apply to those who sympathize with or, apparently have professional responsibilities that include working with these animals, such as lawyers and reporters.

Our founding philosophy states that all men are created equal and with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). Our Constitution guarantees these rights.

Still, how do these rights apply to those, particularly foreigners and sworn enemies of the US, who wish to take those rights away from us, and those who associate with them? I don't know, and Judge Taylor has been no help.

Judge Taylor, if the program is unconstitutional, fine. If it's constitutional, fine, but check your own agenda at the door. You failed to do so in this case, and you haven't persuaded me one way or the other.

RWR

(for more great posts and commentary, stop by http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com.)

I came across this article at TownHall tonight regarding the so-called "civil war" that's coming within the next 12 days, according to Freder_Frederson.

I found it interesting that the article tells us that "military leaders" are saying that "such a conflict may be inevitable."

And yet, the words "civil war" do not appear ANYWHERE on CENTCOM's website. If the US military were working to contain or prevent a civil war, I would think that CENTCOM would definitely have something about it on its website. Wouldn't you? If the US Army were working to contain or prevent a civil war, wouldn't the daily intelligence reports coming out of Iraq have something about it?

I would think TownHall, one of the more responsible media outlets in the US, would pay a little more attention to real military sources, and not to a few talking heads who may be pushing a political agenda. Remember, we do have socialists and members of the "hate Bush crowd" serving in our military. You don't have to look very hard to find pro-Iraq things to put into these reports. Hell, all I do is check CENTCOM, an actual military intelligence specialist, and a popular Iraqi blog, and I have no problem finding it.

So anyway, I responded:

    "Civil War this ... Civil War that ..." (President Bush as quoted by another commenter)

    The President couldn't have said it better ... well, except to say what I would have said: "Civil war, Schmivil War".

    In Iraq, the terrorists are becoming less relevant every day , especially with the hostilities they've now started at the border between Israel and Lebanon.

    Their strategy is now becoming clear: Tie up the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the process capitalizing on the pro-terrorist MSM, so that there's less chance of the US coming to Israel's rescue when the actual attacks on Israel take place.

    The problem with this strategy is that they apparently thought the US would take more time with Iran's nuke program, given the saber-rattling from North Norea, but the attention now being paid to Tehran has forced them to fire on the Israelis from Lebanon in an effort to buy Ahmagaynutjob time in dealing with the US, all the while encouraging the left and the MSM (but I repeat myself) to keep pounding away, calling the situation in Iraq a "civil war".

    Another problem with that strategy is that the Israelis are quite capable of handling that front on their own, and for the "Hezbos" (as I heard Rush call them today) to even have a chance, they're going to have to call upon Iran and Syria, forcing the militarily superior US to settle the score once and for all if it becomes too much for Israel.

    Previous conflicts (e.g. WWII) have taught us that it's best for everyone to simply do what it takes to bring a quick end to the war. While the US has been very careful to avoid collateral damage as much as possible to this point, it's not required by any treaty or convention, and it will likely come to throwing that kind of caution to the wind if our leaders choose to do the right thing to end the war quickly.

    Meanwhile, the MSM will still be talking about the "civil war" in Iraq.

    RWR
    www.rightwingrocker.com

In saying this, it seems I may have made yet another prophecy. Have I predicted that the US will be forced to nuke Iran in order to win World War III? Not necessarily. I have predicted that Iran will be forced to enter the conflict due to the terrorists' miscalculations with regard to Israel's military strength, and eventually the US will be forced into the conflict. This is what the terrorists have wanted all along, but they've wanted to give the Iranians time to get their nukes in order. The sooner Iran is dragged into the war, the better. The longer that takes, the more forceful a message the US will have to send when we ultimately enter the war.

Make no mistake about it. The war in Lebanon is and will continue to be a major front in the War on Terror. Afghanistan and Iraq were mere skirmishes compared to what we face in that part of the conflict. Once again, the world will be forced to take sides, and the bloodiest war ever fought will finally be in full swing. The US will be victorious, but not without serious losses of life and property. Just as in 1945, the sooner we use our nukes to bring the terrorists to their knees and end the war, the better.

Of course, don't be surprised if the anti-war-MSM-left-etc. is still blindly crying "civil war in Iraq" when it's all over. I suppose that's what this prophecy is all about.

RWR

(for more great posts and commentary, stop by http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com.)

 

 TownHall's Jennifer Roback-Morse was in Valencia, Spain this past weekend, and witnessed Pope Benedict XVI's comments defending marriage and the family. These comments brought thunderous applause from a nation whose socialist government had recently imposed gay marriage, easier divorce, and less parental control of education upon its largely Catholic citizenry.

Get the rest at www.RightWingRocker.com.  It seems TownHall has some censorship going on.

See ya there!

RWR

Probably not.

On the other hand, it defintiely wouldn't be the end of the world. Quite frankly, it would be infinitely better than a Hitlery presidency (or any Donk, for that matter). Rudy proved himself a selfless leader many times over before 9/11, and then repeated the task in the wake of that tragic day. Rudy's run and subsequent presidency would serve as a wake-up call for many Americans who have forgotten the events of that day, and the perpetrators who brought it upon us.

The downside? Rudy Giuliani holds some very disturbing positions, particularly some involving the Second Amendment. He would definitely have to be kept in check by the people on these issues.

On the whole, a law-and-order type of guy who has already proven himself in a time of major crisis would be a huge asset, particularly given the wartime role he would have to play. He would be a marvelous commander-in-chief with the kind of resolve that would have our current president in awe. If he is on the November ballot, I will vote for him. However, I will advocate for more conservative candidates until that is the case.

RWR


(for more great posts and commentary, stop by http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com.)

It seems the Republicans are having trouble replacing Tom DeLay on the ballot in Texas, despite a law that seems to allow it.

Why not? The Donks in New Jersey did the same thing not too long ago, replacing Bob Toricelli with Frank Lautenberg - and there wasn't even a law allowing it. Of course, the courts obliged. No sense in taking chances with your life.

However, if the US Supreme Court can cite the laws of other countries in making decisions, why should it not follow that a state like Texas could cite the law of another state in the same manner? Hmm?

I say Leave DeLay on the ballot and get him elected. His so-called "legal troubles" are a joke anyway, and it would show the Donks in Texas a thing or two. Not to mention the laughs it would get here at the RWRepublic.

RWR

(for more great posts and commentary, stop by http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com.)

Come visit me at



www.RightWingRocker.com