The Supreme Court ruled today that the government does not have to release a photo of Vince Foster's body at the crime scene that was sought by a California lawyer under the Freedom of information act.
The Court stated that family's should be afforded privacy in these matters.
I agree, normally. Unless:
- the victim is the Counsel to the President of the United States
- he is also the President's personal lawyer in charge of scandal defense, and knows where the skeletons are
- the victim shows up mysteriously dead in a Federal Park the day after the President fires the Director of the FBI
- witness identified a "neck wound' that is inconsistent with the suicide story and is shown in one of the disputed photos.
I could go thru all of the evidence, but Newsmax has already done it better than I can.
Bottom line: There is a strong conspiracy theory that argues that the President's personal lawyer was murdered. There's evidence that shows it, including this sought after photo. Unless that evidence is made public the conspiracy will rage.
I want to see the photo.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Getting personal - not
The administration aquitted itself well on the Sunday talk shows today defending against the ridiculous charges by Dick Clarke re: 9/11.
The laugh-out-loud silliness came from the liberal panelists like Ceci Connelly on Fox News Sunday who decried the "personal attacks" from the White House on Dick Clarke for speaking up. Personal? What's personal about rebutting the attacks by producing evidence to show that he's either lying or has faulty recollection and his charges are spurious. Clarke's sworn testimony to the committee has been amply rebutted by contradictory testimony in secret to the committee, in background briefings to the press, and by radio interviews. His credibility is shot. But is that a personal attack. Not hardly.
Yes the President's defenders have made the case that Clarke is a disgruntled demoted employee who quit mad and who has a grudge. That's not getting personal. It just explains the motive for Clarke's hit piece.
I say again, can you really take someone serious who believes that Clinton did a better job on counter-terrorism than Bush? Really?
The White House is making only two mistakes in this 9/11 Hearing situation:
1. The should be more aggressive, not less, in pressing the case that the President showed true leadership after 9/11 and has been very effective in the War on Terrorism.
2. They should find a way for Condi Rice to testify in the hearings instead of blocking her. I understand the historical precedent argument for keeping the President's closest advisors out of subpoenas. However, Condi would certainly be very credible blow away Dick Clarke. It would be - case closed.
The laugh-out-loud silliness came from the liberal panelists like Ceci Connelly on Fox News Sunday who decried the "personal attacks" from the White House on Dick Clarke for speaking up. Personal? What's personal about rebutting the attacks by producing evidence to show that he's either lying or has faulty recollection and his charges are spurious. Clarke's sworn testimony to the committee has been amply rebutted by contradictory testimony in secret to the committee, in background briefings to the press, and by radio interviews. His credibility is shot. But is that a personal attack. Not hardly.
Yes the President's defenders have made the case that Clarke is a disgruntled demoted employee who quit mad and who has a grudge. That's not getting personal. It just explains the motive for Clarke's hit piece.
I say again, can you really take someone serious who believes that Clinton did a better job on counter-terrorism than Bush? Really?
The White House is making only two mistakes in this 9/11 Hearing situation:
1. The should be more aggressive, not less, in pressing the case that the President showed true leadership after 9/11 and has been very effective in the War on Terrorism.
2. They should find a way for Condi Rice to testify in the hearings instead of blocking her. I understand the historical precedent argument for keeping the President's closest advisors out of subpoenas. However, Condi would certainly be very credible blow away Dick Clarke. It would be - case closed.
9/11 Navel Gazing
Some thoughts on the 9-11 Commission Hearings this week:
1. The media and the Democrats annointed Richard Clarke this week. Clarke, the former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush-Clinton-Bush, wrote a book criticizing the Bush administration's alleged mistakes on Al-Qaida. The Bush haters were sure they had a scandal in the making. (They're still trying to simultaneously peddle the theories that Bush and Co. were too passive before 9/11 and too aggressive after 9/11. Say what?)
2. The gist of the "scandal" is that Bush erred by "talking" on 9/12 about Iraq and not Al-Qaida despite Clarke's brilliant advice. The problem with the scandal is the witnesses. Those witnesses being the whole world - who saw Bush's "action" of projecting massive force across the world to Afghanistan to cripple Al-Qaida and depose their sponsors, the Taliban, with lightning speed and efficiency. The victory negates the scandal. Sorry. Clarke worried about the talking, Bush responded by acting.
3. Who are you going to believe:
- Clarke a disgruntled functionary who has an axe to grind and who failed at his job for several years
- Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. Powell was excellent.
I'll take Colin Powell and be glad the Democrats are staking their reputation on Clarke. Are you really capable of hearing that Clarke believes that Clinton took counter-terroism more seriously than Bush without laughing out loud.
4. Clearly the results of the hearings should be this simple formula:
- before 9/11 (especially during Clinton) our national counter-terrorism strategy was defensive and legalistic. Wait until they strike and then go after them with law enforcement.
- after 9/11 our national counter-terrorism strategy is offensive and military. Go after them, in their home, before they strike and do it with Special Forces and the 4th ID. Shock and Awe.
I like our current policy, thank you very much, of which George Bush and Co. are the architects. John Kerry wants to return us to the pre-9/11 strategy.
That's all I need to know in order to vote in November. All of the rest is just navel gazing.
1. The media and the Democrats annointed Richard Clarke this week. Clarke, the former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush-Clinton-Bush, wrote a book criticizing the Bush administration's alleged mistakes on Al-Qaida. The Bush haters were sure they had a scandal in the making. (They're still trying to simultaneously peddle the theories that Bush and Co. were too passive before 9/11 and too aggressive after 9/11. Say what?)
2. The gist of the "scandal" is that Bush erred by "talking" on 9/12 about Iraq and not Al-Qaida despite Clarke's brilliant advice. The problem with the scandal is the witnesses. Those witnesses being the whole world - who saw Bush's "action" of projecting massive force across the world to Afghanistan to cripple Al-Qaida and depose their sponsors, the Taliban, with lightning speed and efficiency. The victory negates the scandal. Sorry. Clarke worried about the talking, Bush responded by acting.
3. Who are you going to believe:
- Clarke a disgruntled functionary who has an axe to grind and who failed at his job for several years
- Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. Powell was excellent.
I'll take Colin Powell and be glad the Democrats are staking their reputation on Clarke. Are you really capable of hearing that Clarke believes that Clinton took counter-terroism more seriously than Bush without laughing out loud.
4. Clearly the results of the hearings should be this simple formula:
- before 9/11 (especially during Clinton) our national counter-terrorism strategy was defensive and legalistic. Wait until they strike and then go after them with law enforcement.
- after 9/11 our national counter-terrorism strategy is offensive and military. Go after them, in their home, before they strike and do it with Special Forces and the 4th ID. Shock and Awe.
I like our current policy, thank you very much, of which George Bush and Co. are the architects. John Kerry wants to return us to the pre-9/11 strategy.
That's all I need to know in order to vote in November. All of the rest is just navel gazing.
The 2nd Person
President Bush is going to sign a bill passed by the Senate that will make it a second crime with extra punishment for hurting or killing an "unborn baby" during the commission of a crime. President Bush said that Americans "know intuitively" that when a mother and an unborn baby are killed that there are two victims.
The pro-abortion camp and their political arm, the Democratic Party, oppose the bill because it could lead to unravelling abortion rights. The proposed an amendment, which was defeated, agreeing to extra penalties but not naming it as a separate crime. John Kerry voted for the defeated amendment and against the final bill.
Some thoughts:
1. The news reader that I heard this story from on the radio is apparently off the reservation and didn't get the memo from her handlers in the media. There are no "unborn babies" in feminist land or in journalism. There are only "fetuses". She'll get her hand slapped, I'm sure.
2. The pro-abortion camp cannot have an "unborn baby" recognized, by means of a 2nd crime, as a 2nd "person". They fight tooth and nail against granting personhood because then all of their euphemisms about how it's just a "blob of tissue" or a "product of conception" fall apart.
3. The Democrats still don't understand how illogical their position is. They proposed an amendment agreeing to extra penalties, but refusing to acknowledge that there is an extra victim. If there is no extra victim, why would you penalize the perp extra?
4. Why are they so worried. It only kicks in if you hurt or kill an unborn baby...... Oh yeah, now I see it. But it only counts if you hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of a "crime". If your hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of an "abortion", it's just business as usual in America 4400 times a day and the preferred public policy of the feminist extremists and their puppets, the Democratic Party.
Especially Democratic presidential candidates.
All you need to know is that George Bush will speak up to recognize the personhood of unborn babies. John Kerry voted no.
The pro-abortion camp and their political arm, the Democratic Party, oppose the bill because it could lead to unravelling abortion rights. The proposed an amendment, which was defeated, agreeing to extra penalties but not naming it as a separate crime. John Kerry voted for the defeated amendment and against the final bill.
Some thoughts:
1. The news reader that I heard this story from on the radio is apparently off the reservation and didn't get the memo from her handlers in the media. There are no "unborn babies" in feminist land or in journalism. There are only "fetuses". She'll get her hand slapped, I'm sure.
2. The pro-abortion camp cannot have an "unborn baby" recognized, by means of a 2nd crime, as a 2nd "person". They fight tooth and nail against granting personhood because then all of their euphemisms about how it's just a "blob of tissue" or a "product of conception" fall apart.
3. The Democrats still don't understand how illogical their position is. They proposed an amendment agreeing to extra penalties, but refusing to acknowledge that there is an extra victim. If there is no extra victim, why would you penalize the perp extra?
4. Why are they so worried. It only kicks in if you hurt or kill an unborn baby...... Oh yeah, now I see it. But it only counts if you hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of a "crime". If your hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of an "abortion", it's just business as usual in America 4400 times a day and the preferred public policy of the feminist extremists and their puppets, the Democratic Party.
Especially Democratic presidential candidates.
All you need to know is that George Bush will speak up to recognize the personhood of unborn babies. John Kerry voted no.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Turn the volume down on the whining please.
What's up with the "I'm a victim" whining from the left this last week? Can we turn it down a bit?
example 1: Omarosa (black woman) gets "fired" as an intern on Donald Trump's hit reality show "The Apprentice". Why? Trump "fired" her for being a slacker (she wanted to take a long lunch when there was work to do), a complainer (she milked a small bump on the head as a major concussion to get out of doing things), and for "making excuses" every week.
On the loser ride out in the taxi during the credits Omarosa said she wished her peers would be open to learning new things like "diversity".
Say what? How does that track? What does getting canned for being a slacker and a whiner have to do with diversity? Are we supposed to, for diversity's sake, be tolerant of the effort-challenged?
Wait a minute, of course that's not what she meant by diversity. On the morning talks the next day she said it was because she was a black woman. Please. Enough already.
example 2: Martha Stewart gets convicted on all 4 counts for lying to federal investigators about insider trading. She was once a professional trader. She knew better. She did it. And she lied to cover it up. And she was convicted by a jury on all counts.
Immediately Hillary Clinton and MS. magazine start clamoring that Martha was prosecuted or convicted because she was a "strong woman".
Say what? What does committing crimes have to do with being a "strong woman"?
I think the lefties have the "I'm a victim" whining turned up to 11.
example 1: Omarosa (black woman) gets "fired" as an intern on Donald Trump's hit reality show "The Apprentice". Why? Trump "fired" her for being a slacker (she wanted to take a long lunch when there was work to do), a complainer (she milked a small bump on the head as a major concussion to get out of doing things), and for "making excuses" every week.
On the loser ride out in the taxi during the credits Omarosa said she wished her peers would be open to learning new things like "diversity".
Say what? How does that track? What does getting canned for being a slacker and a whiner have to do with diversity? Are we supposed to, for diversity's sake, be tolerant of the effort-challenged?
Wait a minute, of course that's not what she meant by diversity. On the morning talks the next day she said it was because she was a black woman. Please. Enough already.
example 2: Martha Stewart gets convicted on all 4 counts for lying to federal investigators about insider trading. She was once a professional trader. She knew better. She did it. And she lied to cover it up. And she was convicted by a jury on all counts.
Immediately Hillary Clinton and MS. magazine start clamoring that Martha was prosecuted or convicted because she was a "strong woman".
Say what? What does committing crimes have to do with being a "strong woman"?
I think the lefties have the "I'm a victim" whining turned up to 11.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Time Better Spent
I did watch "The Passion of the Christ". I did not watch ABC's movie "Judas" tonight. Why the difference? I could tell by the previews that it was not going to be faith inspiring treatment of the subject. The preview scene I saw had Jesus saying to Judas "Do what you have to my friend". He may as well as just said "Hey dude, whatever".
I agree with Ann Coulter's take on the subject in her column this week: that liberals just don't have a clue what Christianity's about. Therefore they can't tell the difference between a good movie on the topic and a bad one. And it's mostly liberals making movies, including the producer of "Judas". They really and truly can't tell the difference between a blasphemous portrayal like "The last temptation of Christ" and Mel Gibson's faithful portrayal in "The Passion of the Christ". That's why they can't understand the failure of the former and the radical success of the latter ($215 million in two weeks and counting) at the box office.
It's too predictable what will happen next in the liberal mind and elite media. It goes like this.
1. They didn't like or understand "The Passion" and don't believe bible stories can make money.
2. They predicted it's failure.
3. They didn't understand it's success.
4. They attributed it only to "brilliant marketing".
5. They'll assume that "Judas" will succeed because it's a bible story and they must be doing well now.
6. They'll be puzzled when "Judas" gets low ratings.
7. They'll conclude that bible stories must not do well after all and confirm their opinion that it was only Mel's marketing and the "controversy" that succeeded.
And they'll never get that there is a market for faithful films and not for the PC pap that they put out.
My time was better spent tonight re-watching "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". It has a positive, faith inspiring, message. I like it when Sam-wise tells Frodo at the end that "there's good in the world and it's worth fighting for". Who knows what Judas said in ABC's version.
I agree with Ann Coulter's take on the subject in her column this week: that liberals just don't have a clue what Christianity's about. Therefore they can't tell the difference between a good movie on the topic and a bad one. And it's mostly liberals making movies, including the producer of "Judas". They really and truly can't tell the difference between a blasphemous portrayal like "The last temptation of Christ" and Mel Gibson's faithful portrayal in "The Passion of the Christ". That's why they can't understand the failure of the former and the radical success of the latter ($215 million in two weeks and counting) at the box office.
It's too predictable what will happen next in the liberal mind and elite media. It goes like this.
1. They didn't like or understand "The Passion" and don't believe bible stories can make money.
2. They predicted it's failure.
3. They didn't understand it's success.
4. They attributed it only to "brilliant marketing".
5. They'll assume that "Judas" will succeed because it's a bible story and they must be doing well now.
6. They'll be puzzled when "Judas" gets low ratings.
7. They'll conclude that bible stories must not do well after all and confirm their opinion that it was only Mel's marketing and the "controversy" that succeeded.
And they'll never get that there is a market for faithful films and not for the PC pap that they put out.
My time was better spent tonight re-watching "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". It has a positive, faith inspiring, message. I like it when Sam-wise tells Frodo at the end that "there's good in the world and it's worth fighting for". Who knows what Judas said in ABC's version.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Schadenfruede
I've been thinking through all of the possible news stories to write about:
The election? I'm bored.
Haiti? I still can't figure out what the U.S. national interest is.
Martha Stewart? I really don't care about this trial and ...........
wait a minute......breaking news....... Martha Stewart: Guilty on all counts.
YES! YES! (Happy dance around the living room). Finally they find a jury that has an attention span longer than a reality show episode who can listen to the facts and produce JUSTICE! YES! YES! YES! (party balloons and confetti! Wake up the neighbors!) and finally a filthy rich snobby elitist who's obviously guilty as sin can't trade on her celebrity and buy her way out of a conviction and jail time YES!YES!YES! YES! (high fives all around) and finally there's a wakeup call to the elites that there are new sheriffs in town. YES!YES!YES!YES!YES! I say throw the book at her!
What was I saying? Oh yeah, I really don't care about the Martha Stewart story. If only there was something to write about.
*from Webster: Shadenfruede, Noun, "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others"
The election? I'm bored.
Haiti? I still can't figure out what the U.S. national interest is.
Martha Stewart? I really don't care about this trial and ...........
wait a minute......breaking news....... Martha Stewart: Guilty on all counts.
YES! YES! (Happy dance around the living room). Finally they find a jury that has an attention span longer than a reality show episode who can listen to the facts and produce JUSTICE! YES! YES! YES! (party balloons and confetti! Wake up the neighbors!) and finally a filthy rich snobby elitist who's obviously guilty as sin can't trade on her celebrity and buy her way out of a conviction and jail time YES!YES!YES! YES! (high fives all around) and finally there's a wakeup call to the elites that there are new sheriffs in town. YES!YES!YES!YES!YES! I say throw the book at her!
What was I saying? Oh yeah, I really don't care about the Martha Stewart story. If only there was something to write about.
*from Webster: Shadenfruede, Noun, "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others"
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Buy a Clue
I got a rare opportunity to catch Rush yesterday while driving between appointments. Rush was talking to a liberal caller who was predicting an easy Democratic victory. The gist of his argument was the all the Dems were going to turn out to vote because of their "disappointment" (Rush corrected - anger) with "where the President has taken the country". And the caller couldn't imagine that the Republican base would turn out. Therefore - Democratic victory.
Buy a clue liberals. You're the same crowd who predicted that no one would show up for "The Passion of the Christ". Check the box office numbers on that one. I'm guessing that you're shocked. SHOCKED!
The base will turn out. I'm not worried about that. We understand what's at stake in the fight against terrorism and the disaster it will be if the Dems win and we return to the failed policy of trusting the UN and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue - ala John Kerry. We know. And we'll turn out.
Buy a clue liberals. You're the same crowd who predicted that no one would show up for "The Passion of the Christ". Check the box office numbers on that one. I'm guessing that you're shocked. SHOCKED!
The base will turn out. I'm not worried about that. We understand what's at stake in the fight against terrorism and the disaster it will be if the Dems win and we return to the failed policy of trusting the UN and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue - ala John Kerry. We know. And we'll turn out.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Just a Tuesday
I suppose I should be interested in the "Super Tuesday" Democratic primary races today. I'm not. For a conservative Republican right now is just the idle pre-convention period. Let the Dems fight it out and then bring on the rumble that counts - the general election. I can only muster two pertinent thoughts:
1. I'm glad Kerry is blowing it out. Bush can take him. Let's just get to it.
2. I had a surreal newsjunkie moment today driving to work. I heard a news report saying that John Edwards was pledging to stay in the race "no matter what happens today". I knew instantly what that meant - that he would be withdrawing from the race by midnight. It's just too predictive. It's like the movie cliche where a character shows a picture of his family and you know he's the guy who's going to get killed. Just rewind to Iowa caucus day with Dick Gephardt on the morning shows saying that he was going to win and stay in the race. Gone by nightfall. It's too easy.
The smaller stories are more interesting:
- Terry Nichols going on trial this week in Oklahoma City for the federal building bombing - state charges instead of federal. Nichols attorneys are alledging a conspiracy that includes Iraqis. The judge is chastising the FBI for withholding documents that indicate conspirators. This one's going to heat up.
- Haiti. What a mess. Thank you Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for the fine "fix" you did in '94. Really held up. Thank you France for the wonderful legacy in the colony you screwed up on our doorstep. Why are we sending troops there again? Is there a national interest, other than keeping our shores from getting flooded with refugees?
- Where did the elite media go this week re: "The Passion of the Christ"? Weeks of relentless hounding and wolf-crying and then they suddenly go silent. Why? Could it be that once the movie opened and people actually saw it for themselves they discovered that:
- it wasn't Anti-Semitic and the critics were all ridiculously wrong
- the predicted anti-semitic violence inspired by the movie didn't happen
- it was extraordinarily popular in the heartland ($125M box office) and the predictions of failure were equally all wrong. Why should we trust their box office predictions ever again? Would you do business with the studios that all passed on this film predicting massive failure?
Give me the smaller stories. They'll get me through primary season.
1. I'm glad Kerry is blowing it out. Bush can take him. Let's just get to it.
2. I had a surreal newsjunkie moment today driving to work. I heard a news report saying that John Edwards was pledging to stay in the race "no matter what happens today". I knew instantly what that meant - that he would be withdrawing from the race by midnight. It's just too predictive. It's like the movie cliche where a character shows a picture of his family and you know he's the guy who's going to get killed. Just rewind to Iowa caucus day with Dick Gephardt on the morning shows saying that he was going to win and stay in the race. Gone by nightfall. It's too easy.
The smaller stories are more interesting:
- Terry Nichols going on trial this week in Oklahoma City for the federal building bombing - state charges instead of federal. Nichols attorneys are alledging a conspiracy that includes Iraqis. The judge is chastising the FBI for withholding documents that indicate conspirators. This one's going to heat up.
- Haiti. What a mess. Thank you Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for the fine "fix" you did in '94. Really held up. Thank you France for the wonderful legacy in the colony you screwed up on our doorstep. Why are we sending troops there again? Is there a national interest, other than keeping our shores from getting flooded with refugees?
- Where did the elite media go this week re: "The Passion of the Christ"? Weeks of relentless hounding and wolf-crying and then they suddenly go silent. Why? Could it be that once the movie opened and people actually saw it for themselves they discovered that:
- it wasn't Anti-Semitic and the critics were all ridiculously wrong
- the predicted anti-semitic violence inspired by the movie didn't happen
- it was extraordinarily popular in the heartland ($125M box office) and the predictions of failure were equally all wrong. Why should we trust their box office predictions ever again? Would you do business with the studios that all passed on this film predicting massive failure?
Give me the smaller stories. They'll get me through primary season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)