Saturday, July 01, 2006
Friday, June 30, 2006
At least, that's the message I get from our extra-jurisdictional, power-grabbing jurists on the Supreme Court. I just love the NYTime's excerpt from Thomas's opinion (although, as a black man, he embarrasses the hell out of some):
Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion addressed the substance of the court's legal conclusions. In a portion of his opinion that Justices Scalia and Alito also signed, he called the decision "untenable" and "dangerous." He observed that "those justices who today disregard the commander-in-chief's wartime decisions" had last week been willing to defer to the judgment of the Army Corps of Engineers in a Clean Water Act case. "It goes without saying that there is much more at stake here than storm drains," he said.
This decision has several implications....
- Terrorists found on the battlefield will no longer be captured, but killed outright. Our military, recognizing that they can either read Miranda rights to their enemies on the battlefield or be entirely justified in shooting them dead, will choose the latter for their own immediate and future safety.
- We will lose a great deal of intelligence from any terorists that were are unfortunate enough to capture, since the will be afforded rights which have never been extended to illegal combatants under the very Geneva Convention which this court purports to defend
- It is more likely that renditions will increase, as the US military recognizes that SCOTUS no longer recognizes the realities of war against illegal combatants.
It seems that Kerry's statement that the War on Terror is primarily a war of law enforcement is an opinion that is shared by many on the SCOTUS. This just tells me that there's more work to do in terms of nominating judges to the court. A
Ronald Cass has an excellent analysis at Real Clear Politics:
June 30, 2006
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Common Sense at War
By Ronald A. Cass
Liberty may have been the traditional casualty of war, but common sense is its new colleague. The Supreme Court, trying hard on the anniversary of last term's Kelo decision to find a suitable sequel, performed a rare triple loop in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It found jurisdiction in the face of a statute directly taking jurisdiction away from the Court. It second-guessed the President on the need for particular security features in trials of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. And it gave hope to One-World-ers by leaning on international common law to interpret U.S. federal law. If that weren't enough, the (left, lefter, and far left) turns were executed in the course of giving a court victory to Osama bin Laden's driver. What a perfect way to end the term!
The case challenged the Bush Administration's plan to use military tribunals to try Guantanamo detainees as enemy combatants who are neither within the criminal law and due process protections of the U.S. Constitution nor within the protections afforded prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions. The Administration has been assiduously trying to prevent al Qaeda terrorists from learning what it knows and doesn't know about their operations - an effort opposed by The New York Times, the left side of the Democratic Party, and most of France. Its plans for trial by military commission and its detention at Guantanamo of al Qaeda suspects captured outside the United States are part and parcel of that effort.
The five-justice majority of the Supreme Court that decided the Hamdan case yesterday showed great interest in demonstrating their commitment to upholding constitutional protections and protecting international human rights, both admirable instincts in many settings. They showed less appreciation for the fact that Americans are threatened, and thousands of innocent Americans were killed by brutal thugs - the sort who behead civilians, film it as sport, and post the video on the Internet. And the justices showed no appreciation for the fact that Congress and the President might well know more than they do about the security needs of the United States.
Of course, the justices wrote a careful, precedent-laden, critically analyzed decision, well within the bounds of ordinary judicial craftsmanship - just as they did in Kelo. The proper criticism of their decision is not that it is politically inspired, not that it boldly ignores the law, and not that it is a decision that is utterly without support (though all these critiques may well come from the right). Instead, the proper criticism is that the decision is simply wrong, just as Kelo was, and will have consequences that no sensible American should applaud.
The first misstep was in finding jurisdiction at all. When Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, it included a provision saying that "no court, justice, or judge" has jurisdiction to hear applications for habeas corpus from any prisoner detained at Guantanamo. The Act also provides, in another provision, that pending challenges to decisions of military commissions on matters such as the detainee's status could not be heard except by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The five-justice majority - taking a page from the two-plus-two-equals-five school of new math - read the two provisions together and concluded that it could hear a pending habeas petition. Small wonder Justice Scalia, in dissent, seemed almost apoplectic over the majority's reasoning. The only sad part is that his dissent didn't come complete with the appropriate gestures.
If only they had protected the rights of property-owners as much as they seek to protect the rights of terrorists... We truly are in Bizarro World.
Carry on... and check out:
Allah at HotAir
BlackFive appears to agree with my rendition statement?
ARC: St Wendeler
Now, I think this analysis at Enchiridion Mitis is pretty accurate, but I'm a little sad that it's getting publicized. I mean, without all the Moonbats & their conspiracy theories, I wouldn't have much to comment on (and make fun of) here. I mean, this blog is named Another Rovian Conspiracy precisely because of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that are rampant on the Left.
Here's are a few paragraphs, but be sure to visit the site and read the whole thing:
At this point we must ask: why recall the John Birch Society? Why recount its history? What lessons do we draw from it? For the right, the answer is that it’s a cautionary tale — and it reminds us to be proud of our antecedents in the movement.
For the left, it has everything to do with current events.
The American left today is not quite in the position of the American right circa 1960. But it is suffering nonetheless, having been in slow decline for the past quarter-century. Even when it wins the Presidency, it loses the Congress: and even when the President is the inept, uncommunicative George W. Bush, it still cannot make a dent in the ascendancy of its enemies. The end result of this is a group of Americans, identifying as members of the left, that is strikingly similar to the conservative movement of a generation past: inchoate, angry, and prone to “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.”
Consider the average member of this group. He (or she) remembers the era of leftist dominance of American politics — and he remembers the beginning of its end, on election day 1980. He is around 50 years old. He is professional living in a coastal enclave, mostly on the Pacific coast or the northeast. His political consciousness was formed by the McGovern and Carter campaigns — and of course the American retreat from Vietnam. He may have grown up in Iowa, or Texas, or Missouri, or Utah — but he went to college elsewhere, and fell in love with the people in California, or New York, or Boston, who were so much more progressive and intellectual than the hayseeds back home. His initial concept of conservatives, which he’s never really abandoned, was formed by Nixonian malfeasance: they’re all crooks and corrupt, in his mind. The ascent of Reagan in 1980, and later the 1994 revolution, came as a profound shock — how could America forget so soon? He is well-off: and the bulk of his working career — and hence the font of his personal prosperity — was spent in the boom markets of the 1980s and 1990s, under Republican national governance in one form or another. He doesn’t think about the implications of that much.
But for all his generally good circumstances, he’s been on the political and cultural losing side all his adult life. He’s tired of it. And he’s found a website which, at last, makes him feel empowered. He is, in short, the typical member of the so-called netroots: the left-wing movement, organized around blogs, that seeks to “take back” this country from its usurpers. The netroots is a movement born of desperation and a sense of embattlement at being on the losing side of historical forces. It sees itself as the inheritor and the guarantor of true American tradition and identity, and it seeks to restore those things to their rightful primacy in national life. Critically, it choose to not merely fight its foes, but emulate them. It sees the prime virtue of its enemies as their ability to win, and if they can just crack the code — if it can grasp the very methodology of victory — then they will turn the tables, and victory will be theirs.
Sound familiar? It is — to us. To the left, it’s all very exciting, and all very new. And so we see the self-proclaimed netroots go through a trajectory very much like what the Birchers went through, albeit in highly compressed time. The elements are all there: the resentment, the conspiracy-mindedness, and especially the leaders with stupefyingly poor judgment married to Napoleon complexes. I’ve noted before that they are “frank proponents of outright mimicry of the mechanisms of GOP ascendacy.” Add to this the horrifying, alienating statements ranging from the mockery of dead Americans at war to the derision of political opponents’ personal sorrows. Add to this the demonization of the very people who should, in a sane world, be their friends — The New Republic chief among them — and the formula is complete. Messianism and paranoia marry to make this.
There’s already some evidence of pushback. The journalistic establishment won’t take the abuse forever. The purported agents of the Communist — sorry, the vast right-wing conspiracy won’t endure the smears indefinitely. And the left’s political establishment won’t kowtow endlessly — and certainly not so long as the netroots keep losing. For the sake of American civic life, one hopes this is true.
But for the sake of the enemy — we conservatives of all stripes — we need merely note that whereas they have a pint-sized Welch, they have no Buckley.
This is a good point that there is little to put the brakes on the Left's adenture into the rabbit hole, but I think that there are a few who could rescue them - and if/when the press starts to champion them instead of heeding to the beck & call of people tied up in Securities Fraud investigations, the Left can surely turn things around.
However, the echo chambers that are DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, MyDD... (ummmm, instead of listing them all, just look at the Lefty Moonbat Blogroll on the right... ) and the double-super-secret Townhall email list that ensures that the "People-Powered Movement" has a unified message dictated from on-high will make it very difficult for them to change course.
Only time will tell... and ultimately, it's not criticism from the right side of the blogosphere that will awaken the Left from their BDS and paranoia. It's the "liberal"/progressive institutions such as The New Republic, the New York Times, etc, etc which will do so as they start to question the very nature of the Moonbat Movement. Of course, I wonder whether TNR will be able to continue in its attempts to do so - no one said righting the ship would be easy!
ARC: St Wendeler
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Hmmmm... maybe the German beer crisis has Saint totally absorbed. I have to admit that is pretty unnerving, what with it being a sign of the End Times and all that. But, surely, he will have something appropriately pithy to say.
For me, I truly believe that terrorists should be given Miranda warnings before Delta beats down their door and arrests them. Wait... beats down the door? Shouldn't they knock first? Then there are all those arrests that have stemmed from that nefarious tracking of money transactions... you know, fruit of the poisnous tree and all that. And what about Gideon's Trumpet and the right to counsel?
Now that the door is open, all those good liberal, excuse me, progressive lawyers will have all sorts of things to haul up to the Big Nine.
OK Saint, let's hear it.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
It appears that the end of the world is upon us... Germany is running out of beer and I believe that is one of the 7 signs of the apocalypse, if my memory of Revelations is correct.
BEER WE GO
Germans fear weii going to drink them dry
By Jeremy Armstrong
ENGLAND's massive army of World Cup fans is drinking Germany dry, it emerged yesterday. Breweries warned beer could run out before the final because of huge demand from our supporters.
In Nuremberg, organisers revealed 70,000 England fans who flooded the city drank 1.2MILLION pints of beer - an average of 17 pints each. Astonished bar keeper Herrmann Murr said: "Never have I seen so many drink so much in such little time."
His bar at a fans' tent in the city ran out after they drained all 32 of his 50-litre (11 gallon) barrels. Herr Murr calculated Britons were shifting beer at a staggering rate of 200 pints per minute.
City official Peter Murrmann said: "The English proved themselves world champs. They practically drank us dry." In Cologne, where England drew with Sweden, bottles and barrels of the local Koelsch beer ran out because so many English took them to campsites and parties. Stuttgart bar chiefs said an extra 900,000 pints were sunk last weekend where 60,000 fans partied before and after our 1-0 win over Ecuador.
The Veltins brewery also revealed it has produced a record 418,000 gallons in a bid to keep up with demand. A spokesman said: "It is incredible how much is being drunk but the hardest thing for the breweries is keeping up with the thirst of the English."
In Dortmund, where most fans for England's Gelsenkirchen clash against Portugal on Saturday are staying, the giant DAB brewery is bracing itself by ferrying in extra supplies to boost production.
Now, I've blogged on the beer situation for this year's World Cup in Germany, specifically how Anheuser-Busch made a huge blunder when they didn't predict resistance from European soccer fans to their standard Budweiser brew. They should have taken this global event as an opportunity to introduce a new brand, one that is more tailored to the European palate which could grab a significant market share from all of the local breweries which dominate their particular regions.
I wonder if this huge consumption from the English fans is translating into increased beer sales for AB? It seem unlikely given this report from the worldcupblog. However, inquiring beer drinkers want to know and I suggest that I get on a plane straight-away and check it out myself... anyone care to join me?
ARC: St Wendeler
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
What I find interesting about this press release is that, in addition to slamming Algore's "crockumetary" and the APs reporting of it, it also re-introduces several blogposts of mine (here and here) about global warming - and specifically the debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick graph.
Regular readers of this blog know that Mann completely altered his scientific data to make sure that the Hockeystick would project a signficant and unprecendented increase in climate temperatures. Here's an excerpt from one of my previous posts on the subject:
One of the most damning quotes which came out of the controversy was from this Global Warming researcher:"With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. so one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
D. Deming, Science 1995
Well, it's good to see that the scientific community, after reviewing the data and methodology, have decided that Mann is full of bunk:
[...]It seems that the two independent researchers were correct about the Medieval Warm Period and that some of the disciples of the Church of Algore (Bobbb and Wadard) owe me an apology.
“Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick’ is broken,” Senator Inhofe said. “Today’s report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
The NAS report also stated that “substantial uncertainties” surround Mann’s claims that the last few decades of the 20th century were the warmest in last 1000 years. In fact, while the report conceded that temperature data uncertainties increase going backward in time, it acknowledged that “not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented…’
In addition, the NAS report further chastises Mann, declaring “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990’s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium ...’”
“This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths.
“Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.”
Or are we to believe that the National Academy of Sciences is just full of a bunch of Exxcons?
ARC: St Wendeler
Saw this great blogpost yesterday at Cafe Hayek and have provided it here in full:
Ideology and the Minimum Wage
In a private e-mail sparked by my most recent post on minimum-wage legislation, someone accused me of being an “ideologue.” His evidence, of course, is my opposition to such legislation as a means of helping low-skilled workers.
I realize that Humpty Dumpty instructed Alice that a user of a word can mean by that word whatever he or she wants that word to mean. But we live in a wonderland if we imagine that such use of language facilitates communication.
Am I an ideologue for continuing to believe that a higher price of labor will cause employers to hire less labor, or to extract more output from any given amount of labor? Does this insistence that the law of demand describes reality reveal ideological blindness? (I know, I know: it’s theoretically possible for a minimum wage to increase employment if there’s monopsony power in labor markets. But any such allegation of monopsony power – any allegation that each employer of low-skilled labor does not compete with other employers to hire such labor -- flunks the smell test. One of the few benefits enjoyed by low-skilled laborers is their possession of highly versatile abilities, thus making it quite easy for each of them to switch jobs even for a modest difference in relative wage rates and work conditions.)
If I am an ideologue on this matter, then so is everyone else. Everyone. I’m certain that no one really believes that the law of demand sometimes is suspended. For example, I’ve met no one who, upon finding that he cannot sell his house at his current asking price of $250,000, reasons that he will attract more potential buyers if he raises his asking price to $260,000. I’ve never heard of a supermarket that seeks to clear out excessively large inventories of canned peas or laundry detergent by raising the prices it charges for these items. I’ve never heard of a construction contractor who believes that the higher the price he asks to do a job the more likely he is to be awarded the contract for that job. I’ve never encountered a car salesman who, upon my rejecting the price he asks for a car that I just test drove, says “Okay, okay. I’ll talk to my manager and ask if he’ll accept an even higher price for this baby.” I don’t encounter advertisements by merchants bragging that their prices are the absolute highest in town -- guaranteed!
Do any of you, Dear Readers, know of such behaviors? More importantly, do you know people who are generally more likely to purchase something as its price rises? If you do, surely you are by now a person of enormous wealth.
What is it about unskilled- and low-skilled labor that makes many people fancy that the law of demand does not apply to it? Are the greedy, profit-lusting employers of this labor so foolish that they’ll just dish out more money for the same output as before, without economizing further on labor – say, buy buying less of it or by extracting more work from each man-hour hired? Or are low-skilled workers so daft or dysfunctional that they consistently refuse to respond to pre-minimum-wage-hike differences in wages and work conditions?
No – the true ideologue is one who suspends his awareness of all that he knows about reality in order to continue to believe in some pet possibility – some pet possibility that is inconsistent with reality.
Be sure the check out the comments, b/c the moonbats really don't like to be faced with reality. No, they don't care about the facts, just that you "stand up" to your opponents and attack, attack, attack:
this exchange between Objectivist / Libertarian John Stossel and progressive / communist David Sirota (who, by the way, is a twerp). Here's the video and here's the excerpt which has the Left all abuzz:Your Co-Conspirator,Mr. STOSSEL: … I now realize who you are because you, on my Amazon page, he came on and said, `I’m a smarmy-looking liar.’Here's what OliverWillis says regarding the exchange:
Mr. SIROTA: You are.I have and continue to have numerous disagreements with Sirota’s tone and positioning, but damned if he wasn’t dead on here. Too many liberals come on tv looking to make friends and get blown out of the water by cons. There are way too many Jeff Jarvis/Joe Lieberman liberals who think the most important thing is getting invited to the big party, when in fact they’re laughing at you behind your back.
ARC: St Wendeler
The DUers are all abuzz over this story out of the Judiciary committee:
June 27, 2006
Legal Experts to Senate Committee: Bush "Signing Statements" Unconstitutional, Impeachable
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
In a hearing today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on presidential signing statements, which Ranking Member Leahy called "a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances." Recent reports have highlighted how Bush has issued these orders in record numbers and exercised unprecedented overreach by giving himself the authority to ignore certain parts of the laws he signs.
Because of the extralegal nature of the signing statements, there is nothing for Congress or the Supreme Court to actually overrule. Nevertheless, the statements are binding for policy implementation.
Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto power by declaring portions of new laws unconstitutional and offering his own revisions.
"These statements, which have multiplied logarithmically under President George W. Bush, flout the Constitution's checks and balances and separation of powers. They usurp legislative prerogatives and evade accountability," Fein said. "The President does not enjoy a constitutional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it on that count."
Citing Bush's behavior as "alarming," Fein suggested that the President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Constitution."
Legal Experts... otherwise known as Moonbat Lefties with JD's.
Here is an excerpt of my previous post on the subject of signing statements, which demonstrates that the Left is off the deep end on this one:
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:
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 presidencyAnd 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.
But, I should know better... these inconvenient truths will be cast aside when the target of the criticism is Chimpy W. McBushitler!
ARC: St Wendeler
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
In addition to this recent story about the US Government's tracking of international financial transactions, the New York Times has had some doozies in the past which are of a similar vein.
I apologize that we haven't commented on this story yet, but we thought that everyone already knew that the NYTimes was just the English-language print version of Al Jazeera and Al-Qaeda's propaganda arm in the West. "The Architect" has instructed us to dispense with our comments forthwith because apparently there are people around the country (and someo of whom are in influential positions) who actually do not know this fact, so here you go.
Other Great New York Times Stories throughout America's History at War:
INVASION AT NORMANDY DELAYED TO JUNE 6th DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER!!!
June 5th, 1944
In what surely must be considered a setback for the Roosevelt administration, the weather did not cooperate with the military commanders' plans for a full-scale invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe, resulting in a postponement to June 6th. While critics of the administration have called for a negotiated peace with the Germans, this most recent news that the plans to invade France at Normandy instead of the nearer beaches of Calais only increase the concerns of many in Washington over the competence of Eisenhower and, by extension, the Commander-In-Chief. We here at the Times feel that it is in the public interest to know exactly where their young sons will be sent to die in a what surely will be a gruesome invasion.
Another headline from World War II:
British Use of Captured Enigma Machine Brings Results
February 21st, 1941
After capturing what the Allied forces are calling the Enigma machine, the German Navy is under increasing pressure as the US and British military continues to intercept their submarine wolfpacks before they are able to harm Allied shipping. The code name ULTRA has been assigned for these intercepts of important German communications which provide US and British forces with information about German war plans at the same time that the German forces in the field receive them. While many Allied ships continue to be sunk by German warships, top administration officials tell the New York Times that this technology could be decisive in winning the war, and have even gone so far to ask us to not to print this information. However, we here at the Times recognize feel that it is in the interest of the public to learn of the great successes of the Allied forces as they occur - not well after the events have unfolded. In fact, after checking with our sources in Nazi Germany, the Germans are already suspicious of the security of their Enigma machines, so it is unlikely that this story will have any impact on the Allied forces' ability to prevail.
This one is a bit more recent...
ZARQAWI CORNERED! F-16s En Route!!!
June 6th, 2006
In what will surely be a huge victory for the Coalition Forces in Iraq, sources within the US Military have confirmed that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's has been located 1.5 miles north of the town of Hibhib, near the city of Baquba in Iraq. Our sources indicate that two F-16s, laden with smart-bombs are en route to this location and will be dropping their lethal payload on his safehouse.
While our sources within the military provided us with this information in strict confidence and asked us not to release it prior to the attack, we here at the Times feel that it is in the public interest for the American people to learn about their military's successful operations - as they occur. Now that Zarqawi's death is imminent, it is incumbent upon this administration to take heed of decorated war veteran John Murtha's advice and redeploy "over-the-horizon" (perhaps to Okinawa?) to allow the Iraqi government to stand on its own. If a child, let's say a 2 month-old infant, is to learn to swim, you must throw the infant into the pool alone and see what happens. We are now at this similar stage with the Iraqi government and [...]
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Of course, since Iraq is an illegal and unjustified war, it's okay for the Times to print stories which damage our efforts there.
P.S. Anyone who would like to report on similar NYTimes headlines from the past, feel free to do so in the comments. Would be much appreciated.
Michelle Malkin is also poking fun with some help of photoshoppers.
GatewayPundit is also covering...
ARC: St Wendeler
Monday, June 26, 2006
Now with more tasty scientific goodness!
Algore's first smackdown is here.
Here's the latest smackdown in the Wall Street Journal, from Richard Lindszen an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. (So, he's probably just some right-wing mouth-breather bankrolled by Exxon, right?):
There Is No 'Consensus' On Global WarmingWill count the days, hours, and minutes until I get a comment about Lindzen being an Exx-con.
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN
[...]Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim -- in his defense -- that scientists "don't know… They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template -- namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. [ed - Just to make this very clear, he's referring to journalists here] Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -- especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce -- if we're lucky.
Well... as with the first smackdown, there's very little that you can argue with. Unless, of course, you are an Algore discipile, unwilling to hear a rational and fact-based position which is counter to your dogma in the church of
It seems that the more Algore & his enviro-fetishists push their claims (based on evidence that amounts to "we're not sure... but we can't think of anything else"), the more that scientists that are working to develop actual scientific data are coming out to attack Algore on his idiotic new film.
ARC: St Wendeler
Sunday, June 25, 2006
I can't for the life of me understand why the Democrats are looking to this man to lead their foreign policy discussion. He is clearly not a serious political leader (after his Okinawa comment on Meet The Press last week) and his first instinct is to take the most anti-American position available:
Murtha says U.S. poses top threat to world peaceSOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL
MIAMI — American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.Murtha was the guest speaker at a town hall meeting organized by Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, D-Miami, at Florida International University's Biscayne Bay Campus. Meek's mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Miami, was also on the panel.War veterans, local mayors, university students and faculty were in the Mary Ann Wolfe Theatre to listen to the three panelists discuss the war in Iraq for an hour.A former Marine and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Murtha reiterated his views that the war cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions. He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait."We do not want permanent bases in Iraq," Murtha told the audience. "We want as many Americans out of there as possible."
It's great that the Dems are making this a very clear distinction prior to November. The worse-case scenario would be that they hide their true opinion of America and get elected into power.
However, despite their public idiocy, it's the responsibility of Bush & the GOP to take advantage of their positions and make sure that the electorate understands the ramifications of following the policy prescriptions of Murtha & Co.
ARC: St Wendeler
Oliver Willis says he's for "big picture politics".
Big Picture Politics
This pretty much echoes where I stand:Control of the Senate, whether by one vote or a dozen, means a Democratic majority on every Senate committee, Democratic chairmanship of all committees, power to subpoena witnesses when investigating the executive branch, and a number of other procedural powers that must not be left in Republican hands. Winning either chamber of Congress in 2006 would allow us to conduct real investigations of the Bush Administration. The betting markets give us only a 19% chance of retaking the Senate this year, but I think we stand a pretty good chance of getting it in 2008, when many more Republicans than Democrats are up for re-election.
On the left there are apparently two camps - liberals and Democrats. The coalition is responsible for the election of most Democrats but it isn’t a happy one. Very few Democrats in congress meet the liberal litmus test, while those of us who are just Democrats simply want center-left control of the government. The problem is, now that we’re out of control the liberal faction’s main concern is apparently purity over party control. I’ve always said that’s a problem I’m more interested in dealing with after you’ve got majority control. Nowadays, my only litmus test is which party leader the prospective candidate would vote for should they be elected to congress. Right now, if the answer is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi - that’s good enough for me.
This comes just over a week after he slammed the possibility of Lieberman running & winning his Senate seat as an independent.
He was against Big Picture Politics before he was against it. There seems to be a running theme here with the Left....
That Was Then, This Is NowYour Co-Conspirator,
John Kerry on the campaign trail, in December 2003, before the Council on Foreign Relations:I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election.Kerry was against cutting and running before he was for it!
I have called for the administration to transfer sovereignty, and they must transfer it to the Iraqi people as quickly as circumstances permit. But it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops. That could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Ba'athists.
ARC: St Wendeler