ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, May 05, 2006

Watch the video

It's much more disturbing to see this video than the pictures from several weeks ago.

Not only because of the incessant chanting of Allah Akbar (a phrase used by true believers in prayer AND when cutting the heads off infidels or firing rockets at innocent women & children), but also because of the poor production value.

I ask you... even if you don't think Iran is a threat, can we really entrust nuclear technology to a country which can't successfully coordinate a simple 5 minute presentation?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Camelot - hiccup!!!

Officers Claim Brass Interfered in Investigation of Rep. Kennedy Incident
By John McArdle
Roll Call Staff
Thursday, May 4; 4:16 pm

Police labor union officials asked acting Chief Christopher McGaffin this afternoon to allow a Capitol Police officer to complete his investigation into an early-morning car crash involving Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.).

And it seems that most of the DUers think the preferential treatment received by Patrick isn't a good thing, except for this guy - who wants more info on the "whistleblower" who is saying that Kennedy was drinking at the Hawk & Dove (bar):
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Fri May-05-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message

13. Who is the guy all over the airwaves saying Kennedy was drunk?

Was he there? If he was there, why did he not do a breathalyzer or whatever they do these days. Is he saying his superiors prevented it? If so, why does he want to turn on them?

As dicey as I find the convenient Ambien story (because I have NO sympathy for anyone who continued using it after the news came out), I am equally suspicious of this public-spirited public servant who feels the need to come forward with a drunk claim he cannot prove. In other words, at this time, it's pure slander. I need to know LOTS more about this whistle blower. Because whatever happens, whatever is finally proved, this Kennedy is now permanently tarred with Like father, like son.

More info on the evidence that Patrick wasn't just under the influence of a sleeping pill:
Pat cites pills in car wreck
By Dave Wedge
Friday, May 5, 2006 - Updated: 01:05 AM EST

WASHINGTON -U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy insisted yesterday that he had consumed “no alcohol” before he slammed his Mustang convertible into a concrete barrier near his office, but a hostess at a popular Capitol Hill watering hole told the Herald she saw him drinking in the hours before the crash.

“He was drinking a little bit,” said the woman, who works at the Hawk & Dove and would not give her name.

Leaving his office late last night, Kennedy refused to say whether he’d been to the Hawk & Dove the night before.
The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering, Baird’s letter states. The letter also said that Kennedy claimed he was“late to a vote.” The last House vote was taken nearly six hours earlier.

Patrolmen’s union president Lou Cannon told the Associated Press that officers were fuming that police brass intervened and blocked attempts to give Kennedy sobriety tests. “The officers just want to be able to do their jobs,” Cannon said.

Leaving his Capitol Hill office last night, Kennedy told reporters: “I asked for no special treatment.”

After Kennedy responded to the swelling scandal with his first letter, a Herald reporter visisted bars where Kennedy is known to socialize.

A bartender at the Tune Inn, which is next to the Hawk & Dove, also said Kennedy was spotted in the Hawk & Dove Wednesday.

Hawk & Dove manager Edgar Gutierrez said Kennedy is a regular in the bar. Gutierrez said he was working Wednesday night but did not see the congressman.

Kennedy, who has battled booze and drug problems in the past, said in his first statement: “I will fully cooperate with the Capitol Police in whatever investigation they choose to undertake.”

Despite the wreck, Kennedy took part in normal business at the Capitol yesterday and appeared unshaken by the incident as he chatted with other members. But one Rhode Island political insider said there has been talk of Kennedy’s bizarre behavior of late.

“He has looked terrible lately,” the source said. “He’s been acting goofy, kind of zany.”

In addition to seeking substance abuse treatment as a teen, Kennedy has acknowledged being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

And not sure about you, but have you ever heard about someone taking a sleeping pill and then heading out at 2 am? Most people who take Ambien... you know... go to bed. The fact that Patrick was up at 2am tells me that he wasn't too interested in sleeping.

Ahhh, what a great legacy!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Doughnuts over Doxology

Mark Steyn touches on an interesting subject in today's Macleans. He starts off discussing a Toronto Star article about how Tim Horton's provides a sense of community for the Canadians. I was intrigued by this, since I was in Quebec when Tim Horton's went public on the NYSE (as a spinoff of Wendy's).... and you would've thought that Canada had just won some great military battle, given the coverage at the time. It was breathless and non-stop, talking about how Tim Horton's now would finally see success in the US, etc, etc.

For those that don't know, Tim Horton's is a coffee & doughnut shop - somewhat of a mix between a Krispy Kreme and a Dunkin' Donuts. Check out their website to get a feel for the place. Here's the intro from Wikipedia:

Tim Hortons Inc. [2] (TSX: THI, NYSE: THI) is the largest coffee and doughnut chain in Canada. It is well-known for its coffee, doughnuts, Timbits, bagels, soups, and sandwiches. Some Canadians consider the chain a notable part of their national identity and culture.

Ahh, national identity tied up in a doughnut.

Now, on with Mr. Steyn... who, as usual, takes us places which are difficult to predict:
Worshipping at the church of Tim Hortons
The idea Canadians have replaced doxology with doughnuts is less Timmy than tinny


The other week, the Toronto Star assigned Kenneth Kidd to do a big story on Tim Hortons as an icon of Canadian identity. This was a couple of days before that odd incident with the fellow going into the men's room and blowing himself into a big bunch of Timbits, so nothing tricky was required, just the usual maple boosterism. And naturally the first thing Kidd did was call up the Canadian media's Mister Rent-A-Quote, Michael Adams, the author of Fire And Ice and American Backlash, and a man who can be relied upon to provide some sociological context to the lamest premise.
his turned out to be just the sort of thing Kenneth Kidd needed for the piece and he ran with it: "Canadians, by contrast, are far less fearful," he decides. "Americans now increasingly use churches as their replacement for a sense of community lost to long working hours and lengthy commutes."

I don't know if, in the course of their research, Messrs. Kidd and Adams ever visited any "communities" -- in, say, New England, or old England, or Belgium, or Slovenia, or even Canada. But, if they did, they might have noticed that you drive through the outskirts of the "community," past the various "dwelling units," and arrive at the centre of the "community" -- often called a "village green" or a "town square" -- and smack dab at the centre of the centre you'll see a big building with a cross on it, and perhaps a sign saying "St. George's Parish Church. Consecrated 1352." Nonetheless, undaunted, two grown men are willing to argue in the Toronto Star that Americans have to make do with going to church because they've lost all sense of community.

But not in Canada. "We don't go to church as much on Sundays," says Adams. "We go shopping and we go to Tim's." Gotcha. Americans are forced to worship Christ, whereas Canadians are free to worship crullers.

Timbit Nation," as the Toronto Star headlined it, belongs to a thriving genre of journalism: the feel-good story that's somehow very demoralizing. It's less Timmy than tinny -- hollow and rather sad. I yield to no one in my admiration for a glazed maple cream doughnut, but I'm not sure I'd regard it as sufficient replacement for the entire Judeo-Christian inheritance. And with the best will in the world, standing in line at a Tim's one Sunday morning a couple of months back, I couldn't detect any great sense of community: as slow-moving doughnut lines go, it was not unpleasant, but nor was it an exercise in national affirmation. As a viable thesis, that and a buck'll get you a cup of coffee.

Keep reading... it turns out this is a review of Ramesh Ponnuru's new book, The Party of Death.

(Memo to self, need to get my attorney's to challenge his title... seem's that very phrase was used prominently on this site over a year ago.)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

You'd Better Not Try To Attack Us - Or You'll Get Life in Prison!!!!

What better way to show that we're tough on terror, eh?

Moussaoui Gets Life in Prison
May 03 4:37 PM US/Eastern

Associated Press Writer


A federal jury decided Wednesday al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui deserves life in prison for his role in the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history, on Sept. 11, 2001.

On the seventh day of deliberation, the jury of nine men and three women informed Judge Leonie Brinkema that it had reached a decision. The verdict was announced at 4:30 p.m. EDT.

Moussaoui, a 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent, is the only person charged in this country in connection with the suicide jetliner hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

And, true to form, the DUers are applauding the decision:
CottonBear Donating Member (1000+ posts)
5. The freepers and Bushies are gonna be angry he's not gonna fry. n/t

uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:37 PM
Response to Original message

2. Good, they did the right thing.
very good.

wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #2

8. Amen


Midlodemocrat DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #2

9. Yes, they did.

Thank God.

BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #2

29. I agree. NO martyrdom for him.

Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:38 PM
Response to Original message

4. Oh gawd, now we have to hear all the talking heads whine

I don't believe in the death penalty and I'm glad for the outcome. The guy was in jail when it all happened.

He needs to be in jail. He doesn't need to be murdered.

sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:38 PM
Response to Original message

6. In some way, I'm relieved. No saint hood for him. But no dying for a

'might have'.

Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:38 PM
Response to Original message

7. I'm glad they aren't going to murder him. nt

Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #7

13. "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.:

That was the presidential daily briefing that Bush/Condi got a month before hand and who did nothing.

I'm with you.

Put the man in jail and let's impeach the culprits who did nothing and who could have done something before 9/11

orangepeel68 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:39 PM
Response to Original message

10. well knock me over with a feather

I think this is the right decision (I don't believe in the death penalty, I think life in prison is a worse punishment anyway, and I think this guy is too crazy and stupid to have been trusted with any real knowledge or planning), but I'm very surprised.

Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:40 PM
Response to Original message

12. The sentence is meaningless Updated at 9:59 PM

He should have been tried for his real crime ...... mental illness.

There was some strong evidence that he was rejected by the real bad guys cuz ..... he was a nutjob.

I wonder if Il Dunce will join OJ for golf and find out how one searches for 'real killers'.

Radio_Guy (721 posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:59 PM
Response to Original message

32. I am NOT OK with it

Of course he shouldn't get the death penalty, but did the government actually PROVE he was the 20th hijacker? Did they PROVE is was part of the 9/11? Or is he a scapegoat to help cover up the government's involvement in 9/11. Has he been sentenced just to help the feelings of the people who believe Iraq did 9/11? If he really was involved, fine. Let him stay behind bars. But I have my doubts.

Love how they keep pointing to Bush... if only they directed the anger over Bush at our enemies...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Back To The Future?

I believe OW & Company were cheering the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia... calling it the start of a "trend." I wonder if they'd like the trend of nationalizing oil producers to catch on here in the US.

From today's WSJ
- Free to view today as part of their Open House.

Latin Energy Fad
May 3, 2006; Page A14

Latin culture is all the rage these days, from Botero sculptures and Shakira's "Hips Don't Lie," to burritos and margaritas. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised that Bolivia is getting in on another Latin craze: the abrogation of contracts.

We refer to President Evo Morales's pronouncement on May 1 -- not a coincidental date -- to tear up Bolivia's agreements with foreign investors in the natural gas industry and take, in his words, "absolute control" of Bolivia's natural resources. Kicking out foreign investors by executive decree sounds a lot like the same authoritarian nationalist populismo that has earned Bolivia the only prominence it has ever enjoyed: South America's poorest nation.

The Morales move shocked markets but not for its originality. The newly inaugurated president is following the lead of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who is a knock-off of Argentine strongman Juan Peron. Peron is long since dead but his spirit lives on in his party, which has been the 21st century's trend setter in the assault on property rights. In 2001 and 2002, Argentina's Peronistas reneged on their commitments not only with foreigners but with their own people, declaring a debt moratorium, tearing up utility contracts, confiscating dollar bank accounts and devaluing the peso.

Señor Chávez followed suit after a fashion. He canceled contracts with foreign oil companies last month, demanding that the government oil company be given majority ownership and operational charge of oil fields. New terms offered to investors are also far less profitable. Some have agreed to stick it out, but Exxon Mobil sold its operations and when France's Total and Italy's ENI SpA refused to give in, Mr. Chávez responded by seizing their operations.

Like all fads, this one has its surface appeal. Argentina cleared its balance sheets by sticking it to its creditors and tearing up contracts. Its economy is still growing four years after its theft of private-sector assets, and it may even believe it's gotten something for nothing.

Yet the real predictor of a country's economic future lies in its investment rate. Economists estimate that to achieve steady long-term growth of 3.5% to 4%, Argentina needs an investment-to-GDP rate of at least 23%. To reach 5%, a more reasonable target for a quasi-developed country, it needs 25% investment to GDP. Yet last year's investment rate was a measly 19.8% and today's rate is only 22%. In other words, there are lots of places to put capital these days and few are rushing into Buenos Aires.

It may be that Mr. Morales has been emboldened by the petro wealth of Venezuela. But that country, too, is having trouble sustaining investment in energy production. Thanks to rampant corruption and the government's use of energy profits for buying support for socialism at home and around the region, Venezuela's oil fields are suffering from under-investment. Given an annual depletion rate of 25%, the only thing not clear is how long it will take to run the sector completely dry.

Bolivia to date has had only about $3.5 billion in foreign investment in natural gas, not nearly enough to exploit its vast reserves in the future. Even if Brazil's Petrobras and Spain's Repsol YPF decide to stay and accept the operating terms laid down by President Morales -- including a tax of 82% on natural gas extracted from country's two biggest fields -- new investment is unlikely to be nearly so brave.

Which means Bolivia would become either less productive or highly dependent on state-owned foreign companies from Venezuela or perhaps Russia. Neither option bodes well for the country's sovereignty, much less its prosperity.

Chavez's Oil-For-Chickens program in Venezuela is not what I would consider to be a sustainable strategery. It seems that Latin America is choosing to return to the policies of 60 years ago... forgetting that socialism & communism (ie planned economies) only empoverish the citizenry and enrich party leaders.

Evo Morales & Hugo Chavez are heroes to the Leftists of today who conversely view Bush as the worst monster in history. Evo is pictured on the right. And that's not confetti... that's coca, baby.

And, yes.... the DUers are applauding, indeed:
LiberalPartisan (496 posts)
Wed May-03-06 04:31 PM

Original message

Bolivia nationalizes oil & gas sector

A great day for Bolivia!!!
RIO DE JANEIRO - President Evo Morales of Bolivia ordered the military to occupy energy fields around the country on Monday as he placed Bolivia's oil and gas reserves under state control.
Surrounded by soldiers at an oil field operated by the Brazilian energy giant Petróleo Brasileiro, or Petrobras, Mr. Morales ordered foreign producers to relinquish control of all fields and channel future sales of hydrocarbons through the state-owned energy company.

He gave foreign companies 180 days to renegotiate existing contracts with the government, or leave the country.

"The time has come, the awaited day, a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources," Mr. Morales declared, according to The Associated Press. "The looting by the foreign companies has ended."


90-percent Donating Member (625 posts) Wed May-03-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message

1. NPR this morning

reported that it was a big error in judgement for Bolivia's prez and they need all these foreign natural gas companies to make any money at all.

What they're doing nationalizing is going to drive the country into deeperpoverty, according to NPR.

Please explain to me?

-85% Jimmy

Perhaps Jimmy needs a crash course in Econ 101?

And why is it that the Left always gets peeved when we call them communists? Nationalizing an industry (be it oil or healthcare) is a communist (and authoritarian) act, no?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, May 01, 2006

Der Führer proklamiert, "Heute ist Loyalität-Tag, 2006"

Steve Gilliard at the News Blog uses a childish tactic to insinuate that we're living in a fascist state... He takes this announcement by Bush and translates it into German and Russian.

Here's a sampling in German:

Loyalität-Tag, 2006

Eine Proklamation durch den Präsidenten der Staaten von Amerika

Unsere Nation wird zusammen durch ein Kredo der Freiheit und der Gleichheit gesegnet und gesprungen, die zu allen Amerikanern anvertraut wird. Das Konservieren der Ideale unserer Gründung erfordert den Service und das Opfer jedes Erzeugung, und am Loyalität-Tag, feiern wir das Geschenk der Freiheit und erinnern uns an unsere eigene Verpflichtung zu dieser großen Nation.

And in Russian:
День верноподданности, 2006
Возглашение президентом Соединенных Штатов Америки

Наша нация благословлена и прыгнута совместно creed свободы и равности возложена к всем американцам. Сохранять ideals наш основывать требует обслуживания и поддачи каждого поколения, и на день верноподданности, мы празднуем подарок вольности и вспоминаем наше собственное обязательство к этой большой нации.

You know, because only Hitler or Stalin would actually proclaim something so fascist as Loyalty Day.

Anyway, most would prefer to read the proclamation in the original English:
Loyalty Day, 2006
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

Our Nation is blessed and bound together by a creed of freedom and equality that is entrusted to all Americans. Preserving the ideals of our founding requires the service and sacrifice of every generation, and on Loyalty Day, we celebrate the gift of liberty and remember our own obligation to this great Nation.

The dedication and selflessness of America's soldiers and their families inspire us all. Some of our Nation's finest men and women have given their lives in freedom's cause. By their sacrifices they have given us a legacy of liberty and brought honor to the uniform, our flag, and our country. The American people are grateful to the brave men and women of our military for their service and we will always stand behind them. I encourage all Americans to learn more about opportunities to thank and support our troops, from sending a care package to writing a message, by visiting

Anyway, if you're an idiot or a moonbat, you would think that Loyalty Day is some invention of Chimpy W. McBushitler. In reality, it was passed by Congress in 1958.

And Bush is just recommending some ways in which citizens can celebrate this day (by supporting our troops) - as requested by the statute.

That Bush is truly an evil man...

I wonder if Steve holds Clinton in the same regard. You see, Clinton also proclaimed May 1st as "Loyalty Day":



In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy said, "Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty." The members of our Armed Forces have long responded to such a call, though their task has often been difficult and fraught with peril. Drawing on an abiding devotion to country, America's service men and women have faced loneliness and danger, grave injury and death, to protect our Nation's interests and to reach out to others by providing humanitarian assistance.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 1996, as Loyalty Day. I call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities, including recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I also call upon government officials to display the flag on all government buildings and grounds.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twentieth.


Steve Gilliard - What a dork...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Constitutional Crisis - Because It's Chimpy W. McBushitler! HALLIBURTON!!!

Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe goes off the deep-end in this story that was printed on Sunday:

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
[ie, he's telling Congress that he doesn't agree with the law, but is enforcing it anyway]

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."
Love that they have to go to Portland State to find a whackjob who thinks we're living in a fascist state.
Military link
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military. [duh!]

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.
Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.
That's right... we're not talking about criminal prosecution here in the US. We're talking about military intelligence that, if desired by the command authority of the US military, can be followed up with a bunker-buster bomb...

This article was (not surprisingly) well received by the DU crowd... here are a few things that Charlie & the other BDS sufferers fail to mention.

First, all Presidents have used signing statements. Clinton used them regularly... and it is in their perogative to indicate to the legislative branch those provisions which the President feels are encroaching on presidential powers, typically those involving the military since the President is the Commander in Chief. These disagreements are ultimately decided by the Judicial Branch. This is called checks & balances. Here are some examples of instances where signing statements were used in the past... from this 2003 presentation by Christopher Kelley of the University of Miami-Ohio.

The first signing statement was issued by James Monroe... at issue was, yes... you guessed it, the military:
[In] reality the first use of the signing statement was done by President James Monroe. President Monroe issued a statement regarding interpretation of a law he had signed a month earlier. The law both reduced the size of the army and laid out how the president would select new officers. Monroe had gotten criticism from Congress for not abiding by the congressional demand to appoint officers, instead arguing in his signing statement that the president, not the Congress, had the constitutional responsibility of appointing officers.

Another signing statement (which to me seems to be an overreach by the executive, since it dealt with "interstate" commerce and had a tenuous relationship to the military) was issued by President Roosevelt:
One such instance came when President Roosevelt signed the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The Emergency Price Control Act was designed to help stabilize the economy during the height of the Second World War. Roosevelt objected to a section of the bill that was a “protectionist measure for farmers”30 in the United States. Roosevelt stated: …
there is nothing contained therein which can be construed as a limitation upon the existing powers of governmental agencies, such as the Commodity Credit Corporation to make sales of agricultural commodities in the normal conduct of their operations.
Roosevelt further demanded that the provision be removed and if the Congress did not remove it, he would treat it as a nullity. Roosevelt had solicited and received advice from the Dean of the Oregon Law School regarding what powers were afforded him during a time of war, particularly what rights did he have to ignore sections of laws he determined interfered with the war effort. The Dean told him that “if you decide that a certain course of action is essential as a war measure, it supersedes congressional action.” The Congress yielded and the section was removed.

Now, I know that this is the heart of the matter. The Left fails to recognize that we are at war... until they recognize this fact, we will find few things on which to agree.

And Bill Clinton's assistant Attorney General, Walter Dellinger, made the following statement to Abner Mikva regarding signing statements:
[the P]resident has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency. Where the President believes that an enactment unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it, unless he is convinced that he court would disagree with his assessment…[I]f resolution in the
courts is unlikely and the President cannot look to a judicial determination, he must shoulder the responsibility of protecting the constitutional role of the presidency. (

And finally, even President Carter used a signing statement to invalidate portions of a law that he disagreed with:
For example, in the “Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for fiscal year1978”5, an amendment was added that prohibited “the use of funds under this Act to carry out [President Carter’s] amnesty program [for the Vietnam War draft resisters].” When President Carter signed the law, he noted his objection to the amendment because it interfered with his pardon power, was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and denied due process of the law. To carry out the pardon, President Carter would have to process all of the re-entry applications for those draft resisters that left the country. Even though the Justice Department announced that the restriction would prevent the re-entry of many of the draft resisters, in the end the Carter administration ignored the amendment and processed all of the applications.

Of course, this historical analysis will have little effect on Charlie Savage and his fans at DU. All that matters is the headline and the charge against Bush - nevermind the facts.

Bush is rightly making his opinions known regarding his executive powers as it relates to the military.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism

Great Mark Steyn today... Read the whole thing:

Where's the dissent about source of quote?

April 30, 2006


John Kerry announced this week's John Kerry Iraq Policy of the Week the other day: "Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military."

With a sulky pout perhaps? With hands on hips and a full flip of the hair?

Did he get that from Churchill? "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, at least until May 15, when I have a windsurfing engagement off Nantucket."

Actually, no. He got it from Thomas Jefferson. "This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation," warned Sen. Kerry, placing his courage in the broader historical context. "No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: 'Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.' "

Close enough. According to the Jefferson Library: "There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes are: 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' "
It's truer to say that these days patriotism is the highest form of dissent -- against a culture where the media award each other Pulitzers for damaging national security, and the only way a soldier's mom can become a household name is if she's a Bush-is-the-real-terrorist kook like Cindy Sheehan, and our grade schools' claims to teach our children about America, "warts and all," has dwindled down into teaching them all the warts and nothing else. Or as the Capital Times of Madison, Wis., concluded its ringing editorial on the subject:

"Thomas Jefferson got it right: 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' And teaching children how to be thoughtful and effective dissenters is the highest form of education."

Teaching them authentic Jefferson quotes would be a better approach.

It's awfully easy these days to "dissent" against the war in Iraq and the War on Terror in general, since this is in reality the majority opinion as promoted by the MSM.

In reality, true dissent (and true patriotism) is to support our troops and their efforts in the field.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler