The importance of the Senate Intelligence Committee requires that its members be not merely bipartisan, but completely apartisan regarding its business.  The safety and security of not only all American citizens, but of all our soldiers in the field rest upon the Committee's ability to oversee the CIA and intelligence-gathering operations in such a way as to put all politics aside, keeping the security of the nation foremost in the minds of its members.  Serving on the Committee is, to put it bluntly, a duty that should never be tainted by the stink of partisan politics.

Well, it stinks now.

FOX news recently acquired a copy of a memo from Vice Chairman of the Committee Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va), apparently meant for the other Democrats on the Committee.  The full text of the memo can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html.  At first, Rockefeller claimed it was written by a staffer, then later revealed it was written at his direction.  Not only has he not denounced its contents, neither have the other Democrats.  Any of them. (Except Zell Miller (D-Ga), who said, "Heads should roll".)  This memo clearly shows the existence of a Democratic plot to use the power of the Senate Intelligence Committee as a political tool to undermine the credibility of the President and Commander-in-Chief while American troops are fighting a war.

It reveals a plan to push Republicans into revealing as much as possible about how the CIA's intelligence was used to form the conclusion that war in Iraq was necessary.  Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. 

Following that, the Democrats plan to insert their pre-written conclusions about the necessity for the war into any reports the Committee as a whole may issue.  Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. 

After that, they plan to force the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Administration starting with the "dubious motives and methods" that they themseves will have exaggerated the reports (by including their pre-written additions) to show.  Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission. 

Their plan is to do this next year, timed in such a way as to cause the most damage to President Bush's re-election campaign.  We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time -- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year... We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

To the Democrats thus entrusted with the lives and safety of Americans at home and abroad, nothing is more important than finding a way to use their public trust to attack President Bush.  Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq.

The memo even clearly reveals that this foul strategy has already been followed.  Remember the big investigation into the Iraq-Niger uranium deal?  The FBI investigation was initiated by Jay Rockefeller, supposedly to "allay concerns" that the US government was involved in the forgery of the documents the British bought from Italian intelligence.  Now we know the true reason why... it was part of the overall Democrat campaign to undermine President Bush's credibility.  For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman...

If we don't see Rockefeller stepping down from his position on the Committee -- if not resigning from the Senate altogether -- within a week, then we'll know the Democrats still plan to use whatever they can to attack the President's credibility in any way they can.  The important questions are: how can we insure the impartiality of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the future... and how do we make certain that our CIA and FBI are not being used as tools of partisan politics? 

Last night, I was "invited" to take part in a UCLA study.  Not personally, of course.  Someone posted a repeat message to multiple threads on RightWingNews that said:

Hello
I'm a researcher in the Dept. of Anthropology at UCLA. I have recently put up a web-based research study that surveys vaious aspects of political opinion and personality. I would appreciate it if I could get anyone using this listserv to participate in the study. Up until now, I have primarily had left-leaning university students as participants in the study, and would like to have broader views represented in the study. If you have a few minutes, I would appreciate if you would take the survey.

Well, I'm always interested in advancing the cause of science, so I followed the link supplied by the poster and found a survey at UCLA all right, but not exactly what I'd call "balanced"!  After answering a question about how strongly I valued my self-identity as "an American" (very strongly), I was presented with a list of statements and asked to answer whether I agreed or disagree with each, and how strongly.  And what statements they were!!  They are all variants on the following:

Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

It would be best for everyone if the proper authorities censored magazines so that people could not get their hands on trashy and disgusting material.

There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group's traditional place in society.

The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just loud mouths showing off their ignorance.

Once our government gives us the go ahead, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.

Have you ever heard of such an obviously biased "study" as this?  Raise your hands, anyone who can't see that they're attempting to correlate one's self-identity as an "American" with strong religious beliefs coupled with strong agreement with those wildly biased statements.  I certainly hope that none of MY tax dollars went to fund this travesty of scholarly inquiry. 

If you manage to hold your disgust in all the way to the end of the questionnaire (I'm a man of fortitude), you're rewarded with... a banana! No, with their position paper on the theory they're attempting to prove. It starts out:

"Terror management theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski and Solomon, 1986; Greenberg, Solomon and Pyszczynski, 1997) seeks to explain the well-known tendency for people to defend their deeply held beliefs and ideological commitments (e.g., Festinger 1957; Lerner 1980)."

Well, according to CavalierX, 2003, Conservatives defend their deeply held beliefs and ideological commitments because they MAKE SENSE. But that means nothing to people who arrive at their beliefs through sheer emotionalism, especially those driven by guilt and hatred. And especially those to whom NO belief is deeply held except self-loathing and fear of anyone too different from one's self... so much so that Liberals will CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS rather than be considered different from the rest.

As our primary hypothesis for this experiment, we predicted that participants scoring high on authoritarianism would be likely to respond to fitness-reducing threats by increasing their pro-American bias in evaluating pro and anti-American authors when compared to a control group.  We also predicted that those participants scoring low on authoritarianism would not show increased pro-American bias, and may even show decreased bias when compared to controls, as this would be consistent with their ingroup ideology of tolerance towards others with dissimilar views.

Permit me to translate.  "Pro-American equals religious fanatic equals right-wing authoritarianism, while anti-American equals religious tolerance equals sweet multiculturalism."  And they made certain that their hypothesis would be corroborated by weighting the questions like Luca Brasi going down to sleep with the fishes.  What else could one expect from the Liberal elitist mob at UCLA?

I was checking out some of the fantastically unhinged rants over at Democratic Underground, which bills itself as "one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards".  I also noticed that they stated "Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues."

'That might be fun!' I thought.  After all, where better to have a real discussion about the issues of the day than those with those whose views are opposite mine?  How better to gain an appreciation and understanding of the Liberal mind than to chat with some Liberals and maybe, if we're all lucky, find some common ground? 

I just knew that they themselves would welcome such a discussion, even a chance to bring me over to their views on some issues.  After all, don't Liberals see themselves as "progressive", "all-inclusive", and "open to all points of view"?  Aren't the Democrats billed as the "big tent party"?  Don't they proclaim that patriotism is best shown by debate and questions?  Anticipating some really rousing debate, I navigated to the register page to set up an ID and meet my new debate partners.

Alas!  I read the rules of the site and realised my hope of a good debate was in vain.  It seems the progressive, all-inclusive, open-to-all-views members of the big tent party don't welcome opposing points of view after all!  They openly tell visitors to the site that they're not welcome if they dissent from the Liberal agenda!  Read for yourself, and weep for the "tolerant" Left that isn't so tolerant, it seems, of the dissent they pretend to admire.

"If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

Wow!  What could be more fair, progressive, tolerant, all-inclusive, and "liberal" than that?

So once again, the America-haters joined up with the Bush-Bashers, time-lost burned-out hippies, and fanatical ostrich-imitating terrorist appeasers ("Peace at ANY cost!") under the all-embracing red banner of the Communists to bring us another treat: the sight of a group of losers frothing at the mouth with hatred of America and especially President George W. Bush parading through our nation's capitol.

Oh, joy.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has put up a few assorted photos of some of the assorted idiots who think that running away from trouble is the best way to deal with it, with links to many more: http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_10_26.PHP#001450

"The demonstration was co-sponsored by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) and United for Peace and Justice."
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/102503report.html

So we know who sponsored the demonstrations, now don't we?  Why does that matter?  Well, would YOU attend a pro-troop rally if it was sponsored by the KKK? (Yes, I know they were founded by Democrats, but I'm making a point here.)  I certainly wouldn't.  So who attends these things?

"Al Sharpton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, exhorted the crowd not to be content with the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/war_protests

So we know who endorses them, too.  Who else spoke at this Communist-sponsored rally?  And can we trust any of those who did so to run the country they hate so much that they join up with Communists -- remember them, the totalitarians who enslaved half the world until Ronald Reagan drove the U.S.S.R. to its knees? -- to protest its policies? I don't think so.

Do you?

Well, the Liberal mind strikes again... in entirely the wrong direction, as usual.  It seems that (to my utter shock) the BCIS (formerly known as the INS) is actually doing its job, enforcing the law. According to an Associated Press "news" story published yesterday (thinly disguised Liberal op/ed, as usual), half a million illegal aliens have been deported since 1996 and -- get this -- America is at fault for the criminal activities they commit back in their home countries.

The U.S. government calls them criminal aliens, but they are as American as drive-by shootings and crack cocaine.

Whatever happened to baseball, hot dogs and apple pie?  It's great how this writer starts right off with his anti-American vitriol, so we know where he stands, isn't it?  Some of them try to disguise it, pretending to be unbiased. Not this guy.  When he thinks of America, it's drive-bys and crack. Nice.

Many came to the United States as children, often in the arms of men and women fleeing poverty and war. They went to school here, but usually not for long. They came of age on city streets from Los Angeles to New York. Eventually they broke the law.

Well, that would make them criminals, then, wouldn't it?  I love how the story makes it sound inevitable that they would break the law, possibly against their will.  Then again, Liberals believe people are not capable of deciding their own behavior.  That's why they're not to be held responsible when they just happen to break the law.

In 1996, Congress banished them from America for life and directed immigration agents to hunt them down. The biggest dragnet in U.S. history is now well underway. Already, more than 500,000 have been rounded up and deported, according to government figures, and this year they are being banished at a rate of one every seven minutes to more than 160 countries around the world.

All I can say is, "Yaay!".  Then I can wait seven minutes and say it again.  They're criminals. They're aliens. They're outta here.

The culture of drugs and guns many carry back to their native lands is wreaking havoc in nations that receive them in substantial numbers.

This is how Liberals view the United States. "The culture of drugs and guns".  No wonder France hates us... they must read a lot of AP "news" reports.

Despite the profound impact of the criminal deportations, few Americans know anything about them.

That's probably because the "profound impact" is positive... for Americans.  Hmm... fewer criminals on our streets.  Fewer criminals in our jails living at our expense.  It's a win-win situation for American citizens.

Under the 1996 U.S. law, every non-citizen sentenced to a year or more in prison is subject to deportation, even if the sentence is suspended. Deportable crimes can be anything from murder to petty theft. The law is retroactive, making immigrants deportable for crimes that did not warrant deportation at the time they were committed. And the law eliminated nearly all grounds for appeal, making deportations virtually automatic.

You mean if you come here and commit a crime, you have to go home? What a great law!

They are an army of social misfits - drug addicts and drunken drivers, robbers and shoplifters, rapists and wife-beaters, drug traffickers and gang members.

All the more reason to get them the hell out of our country.  The plaque on the Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:  I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  It doesn't mention criminals.

Deported after serving sentences for their crimes in America, the criminal deportees are simply set loose upon arrival, usually with little or no money and with no prospects for work.
To survive in what for most of them are unfamiliar surroundings, many turn to the skills learned on the streets of America - to drug dealing, stealing, extortion, sometimes even murder.

But Liberals make the same excuses for repeat offenders right here at home. "Its not their fault, it's all they know!" Look, I've lived in America all my life. I didn't learn those skills on "the streets of America".  Why is it America's fault when people become criminals?  I will never understand why Liberals refuse to hold people responsible for their own behavior and choices.

In El Salvador and Honduras, many of the deportees become victims before they can become victimizers. Regarded as pariahs in their native lands, they are hunted by vigilante squads, some shot down within days of stepping off the unmarked U.S. Marshal's Service jetliners that carry them into exile several days every week.

Sounds like a matter for the governments of El Salvador and Honduras to deal with.  Maybe we can send all of our Liberals down there to help them become more enlightened.  They can learn to give criminals free housing, three meals a day, and cable tv. They can heavily tax the citizenry to pay for that and other social programs.  Before you know it, they'll be just like America!

But unlike citizens, aliens who commit crimes can simply be sent home.

Right. Because they're here as guests of this country.  If they break our laws, they SHOULD leave.

What I want to know is, what does AP writer Randall Richard want done with non-citizens who commit crimes in our country?  I didn't notice his solution to the problem in the story, just a lot of whining about how America is to blame for the world's woes.  Should we just keep them in US jails at US taxpayer expense? Grant them citizenship -- which, apparently, many of them never bothered to apply for -- so that we have to turn them loose on OUR streets instead?  THAT would be great, wouldn't it: come break our laws and get your citizenship free!  Act now! Operators are standing by!

I think we deserve more from "news" organisations than these pathetic laments backed by violins playing for the poor, poor victims of America.  Would it be asking too much to request that writers who point the finger at the bad old USA offer a suggestion of their own on how to fix the matter, instead of just whining on about how bad America is?

Yeah, that'll happen.

It's interesting to see how far a penchant for keeping up with current events combined with a talent for seeing patterns could take one down the road to rampant paranoia.

As a case in point, read this story in today's Houston Chronicle about an alarming jump in flu cases in Texas recently:

"Texas Children's has identified 85 flu cases in the past 10 days, an enormous leap over the typical flu season caseload of nine a week. Two children are in intensive care. At Ben Taub, which is part of the Harris County Hospital District, doctors are seeing 80 to 100 pediatric patients a day and 85 percent are flu cases, said a spokeswoman. Similarly, the volume at LBJ Hospital has doubled."
"Unpleasant as the illness is, causing high fevers, body aches, coughs and general malaise, there's very little doctors can do with the flu. Antibiotics don't help because flu is caused by a virus. Caught early, antiviral drugs may decrease the duration of illness."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/front/2174056

Then recall this line from David Kay's report on Saddam's WMD:

"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Next, read the flu-like list of symptoms of Brucella infection: 

Aches, chills, fever (undulating)
Drenching sweating
Fatigue, myalgia, muscle weakness
http://biosun.bio.tu-darmstadt.de/infekt/Gram-minus/tsld021.htm

Paranoid?  Probably.  Then again, remember the Iraqi operatives caught in March trying to get themselves smuggled across Mexico's border into Texas... where the inexplicable increase in people with "flu-like symptoms" are.

"This week law enforcement sources said they uncovered a plot by an Iraqi terror team to get smuggled into the U.S. through Mexico, in an effort to reach the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas."
http://www.visalaw.com/03apr1/4apr103.htm

You can see how easy it would be to put two plus two plus two plus two together and get... what? Are we being too paranoid?  We won't know until, say, Texas declares a state of emergency due to an epidemic of Brucella.  The thing is, we can never be sure our enemies aren't trying to kill us.  Can we afford to put people into office who want to return to the pre-9/11 state of complacency, thinking "it could never happen here"?

The hypocrisy of Liberals, especially those in the media, apparently knows no bounds.  One of the bubbles of marsh gas rising in the Democratic swamp right now is the story of Army Lieutenant General William Boykin, who said while speaking in his church -- a private meeting place, not a government or public forum -- that the "real enemy" is Satan and that he felt that God put George W. Bush in the White House at the right time to deal with the threats we face today.

Immediately the Liberal Meat Grinder formerly known as the free press revved into action, attacking the General because his personal beliefs might offend the terrorists who are trying to kill us. "Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world and, perhaps, increased risk for members of the U.S. armed forces serving in Muslim nations," read part of a letter from Senator John Warner (R-Va) (I'm shocked) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi).  It also said, "there are limits on the right of expression for service members." 

When did THAT happen?

When did it come about that a man cannot even speak his mind in a private gathering?  He wasn't giving away State secrets.  He wasn't speaking in his capacity as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He was expressing his personal opinion in a church.  When did that become a crime deserving of death, as Nina Totenberg of NPR immediately advocated when she said "I hope he’s not long for this world"?  She immediately backtracked, saying "In his job, please, in his job."

It may have been the part where he spoke of a Somalian warlord who taunted him by saying that Allah would protect him that upset the Left.  "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," Boykin said, referring (as he later explained) to the warlord's "worship of money and power."

If General Boykin had stood in a mosque and denounced President Bush, calling HIM a representative of Satan instead of Osama bin Laden, he would have been instantly lionised by the media instead.  If anyone had dared to criticise those statements, the media and the ACLU would have been screaming bloody murder about the repression of his right to speak his mind, and his freedom of religion.

General Boykin exercised his First Amendment rights of free speech and practicing any religion he chose.  When those things become crimes, book me on the next flight out.  Since he wasn't speaking in his official capacity, or even in a public place, his rights ought to be protected as much as those people who, like most of the Democratic Party, viciously attack the President and accuse him of perjury without proof.  As Donald Rumsfeld said about Boykin's remarks, "It is not our statement; it is his statement."  Maybe the members of the press ought to stop exercising their First Amendment rights to attack someone for exercising his First Amendment rights.