Who do you believe?

Terror suspect challenges US president's 'unchecked' power

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Lawyers for an American 'war on terror' detainee said they had petitioned the Supreme Court to examine the US president's powers, citing "the danger of an unchecked Executive Branch".

In a filing on Tuesday, lawyers for terror suspect Jose Padilla cited evasive government moves to avoid a high court examination of his case as reason for requesting a "certiorari" review of a lower court decision challenging the president's wartime powers.
"The government's actions highlight the need for this court to grant certiorari to preserve the vital checks and balances" implicit in the US Constitution, the petition said.
Referring to a series of "strategic maneuvers" to keep Padilla's case from being heard in court, the petition said the government's actions "highlight the danger of an unchecked Executive Branch."

Common sense says that if the terrorist's defender doesn't like it, it's a good thing.

Term limits

Watching CNN and the networks.... I think sometimes that these people get as spoiled by their own power and publicity and press as the politicians they watch so closely. I even heard a CNN newscaster say that the content of a story was not as important as what the viewer takes away from the story. That tells me that they aren't worried as much as about accurately reporting as they are about steering public opinion and making people think what they want them to think. That's the same propoganda that they were 'Shocked! Shocked!' to hear that the administration was doing. What we need is to keep these brainwashing Vampires :) accountable by keeping a close eye on what they say, and by considering putting term limits on them. Ten years.... and get rid of them. Put them on the lecture circuit. Shove them onto the Sunday morning talk shows that are already so full of biased talking heads that they won't be noticed. The whole news industry could well do with some fresh blood.

That annoying verification thing

folks, I notice that regardless of what conservative points of view I put forth, I get no comments. So either nobody is reading, in which case I can say whatever I want, or people aren't commenting. If you aren't commenting because of that annoying verification thing, it is only because the spambots were annoying me. You can argue back all you want.... just do the little verification thing. Okay? :)

But I thought he was a model citizen!!!

January 11, 1999
Page FourB:Baldwin Wanted Hyde Stoned?
Actor Alec Baldwin may have meant it as a humorous skit when he railed about stoning Henry Hyde to death, but even after he apologized and a leading entertainment industry figure condemned him, the mainstream media never highlighted his outburst.
On the December 11 Late Night with Conan O’Brien the NBC host wrapped up his interview with Baldwin by asking about Clinton’s plight. Baldwin replied:
"They voted on one article of impeachment already. And I come back from Africa to stained dresses and cigars and this and impeachment. I am thinking to myself, in other countries they are laughing at us 24 hours a day and I’m thinking to myself, if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up, yelling] What is happening in this country? What is happening? UGHHH!"
Cutting to the supposed punch line, O’Brien then jumped up and put an air mask over Baldwin’s mouth to calm him down. Now, substitute the name Al Gore or Hillary Clinton for Henry Hyde and the name of a conservative for Baldwin. What would have been the reaction from the major networks?
In this case: nothing, not even after the Washington Post reported that "Baldwin said the exchange was a parody mocking the sanctimony of representatives...and that he was sorry Hyde took it badly. ‘In the current supercharged climate there’s no room for this kind of glibness,’ he said."A December 21 Post item by TV columnist Lisa de Moraes relayed how Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, wrote Baldwin: "However it was said it’s not something you use as a joke, it’s not something you parody. This is incendiary."
FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume played a RealPlayer clip of it from the MRC Web page and Rush Limbaugh alerted his listeners. After the December 20 Fox News Sunday showed an excerpt of Baldwin’s outburst, Brit Hume observed: "I think it was not in earnest. On the other hand, I don’t think the thought would have occurred to him to say it on that show if it hadn’t occurred to him otherwise."

True Lies?

Wow. I put in an opinion on Iraq and nobody argues. There must be no one reading. Okay, here's another.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House and a senior Republican lawmaker expressed concern on Thursday about secret military payments to get Iraqi newspapers to print pro-American articles, but the military said it was important to spread the truth while insurgents were "lying to the Iraqi people."
U.S. troops in an "information operations" task force have written articles with positive messages about the U.S. mission in Iraq that have been translated from English into Arabic and planted in Iraqi newspapers in return for money, according to defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, folks, it's called propaganda, and it has existed since war existed. And for the party that actually started us in World War Two, Korea, and Vietnam to suddenly look indignant seems just a bit..... retarded. It's like Claude Rains in "Casablanca" saying "I'm shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on here!" just as someone hands him his winnings. You know, don't act like you've never done it.

Oh, and John Warner agreed with you and was just as indignant. Well, you can have him.